Mind Mastery

Objective Morality contains;

Elements;

- The Lore Of Morality

- Rights

- The Golden Rule Of Equity

- The Causality Factor

Virtues;

- Reason/logic

- Curiosity/desire

- Care/self interest

- Intelligence

- Integrity

- Honesty

- Courage

- Justice

Values;

- Life

- Knowledge

- Dignity

- Self esteem

- Independence

- Honour

---

Objective Morality is the title that the philosophy of Utopian Realism utilises to describe the integrated system of morals, rights, lore, values and virtues that empower man to live freely, peacefully, happily and prosperously in life.

When one acts in accordance with Objective Morality, they would objectively be good. If they did not, then they most probably would not be, although it would be dependant on circumstance and context.

The word objective meaning that the principles and guidelines of objective morality have been procured through a rational epistemological method rooted in reality. 

It is not subjectively based on anyone's whims or feelings and does not only hold true conceptually as an idea, but holds true when tested in reality. This is how you measure the quality of an idea, by stacking it up in the real world.

Reducing this idea down further, morality isn't inherent in nature or reality, it's not something you can physically observe without proper context. You can easily observe a tree or woman or table in reality, but without the correct knowledge and method of reasoning, one cannot explicitly recognise morality in existence.

It takes no special knowledge or method of reasoning to open your eyes and see objects in front of you or to hear sounds. Yet it does take special knowledge to explicitly recognise right from wrong behaviour in context to human on human interaction. 

One may have a basic implicit concept of right and wrong, but this is not enough to form a proper civilised society or to come to any kind of objective conclusions.

Morality is not intrinsic, meaning it is not self evident in nature without human observation, consciousness and reasoning.

Morality is also not subjective, meaning it cannot be decided upon by ones whims and feelings of the moment or by a cultures beliefs.

Morality requires one with the capacity of conscious reasoning to ascertain that morality is indeed objective, meaning it is not inherent to nature but can be derived from nature, it is not subjective, meaning it is not to be decided by chance or by any kind of arbitrary notions.

Morality must be recognised by a conscious and rational mind and derived from evidence based reality.

That evidence must be induced by mankind's interaction with each other.

Mans interaction with animals and inanimate objects employs a different code of conduct in comparison to mans interaction with other men.

This is because man has the capacity to conceptualise, plan long term, use imagination, reason and to express narrow to general intelligence.

These are all skills applicable to man, yet are not to inanimate objects and animals, thus requires a different code of morality.

When it comes to mankind, we can conceptually understand and integrate ideas drawn from reality which show a correct method of how to be objectively good in relation to other men.

Good being another term to denote being moral. 

What does it mean to be good and how do we really know?

The way we can know what it means to be good and thus what morality is, is by rationally conceptualizing what good means to you as an individual and then by inducing through countless examples in everyday life all over the world of human interaction and contrasting the different behaviour.

One can begin with simple deduction before moving into induction. A simple generalisation of basic commonsense such as 'I don't want bad things to happen to me, so I shouldn't do bad things to others' is a good deductive starting point. It's also inductive in the context that you know it is objectively true for yourself, but at this point before further research, you cannot conclusively say it is true for others.

We can then build and expand our hypothesis based on this generalisation that if one would not like to be robbed, they should not rob others etc.

When we have our hypothesis, we can begin real world observation and induction to ascertain if our prediction that others want to be treated as we wish to be treated holds true in reality. 

We then begin to examine human behaviour and interaction and learn to recognise contrasting or distinctly opposite actions.

When we have enough examples of contrasting, such as when people volunteer to help out flood victims or pull over on the side of the road to aid in a car crash, compared to mugging someone on the street or forcing them to pay tax under the threat of punishment, we can clearly catalogue mans behaviour into categories.

Those categories primarily being good, bad and neutral.

By comparing human actions and inaction to our preliminary hypothesis of what it means to be good, which in essence we deduce and induce from the way we wish to be treated, we can make accurate generalisations about right and wrong behaviour, compare it to the standard model we have created that is unbiased and fair to everyone equally.

We can easily deduce that because we want to be treated a certain way, to be respected and to not be raped, mugged, tortured, hurt, murdered, robbed etc.. that other people also do not want this to happen to them. 

We can further induce this by observing in reality that whenever such a negative event happens to someone, they would have preferred that it didn't. 

By learning how we personally wish to be treated and by learning how others wish to be treated, we have the back bone of a solid objective foundation with which to build our Objective Morality Model.

When we compare police arresting a peaceful man who doesn't want to share his private information compared to a paramedic resuscitating someone that was rescued from drowning, we can then compare these contrast human behaviours or actions to our model of Objective Morality.

The model is objective and not subjective because it applies equally to everyone, every point in the Objective Morality model is incontestable. 

This will be proven once we reach the fine details of each point.

This way, we can objectively identify what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad.

Why is it so important to create a moral foundation that is extremely precise and as accurate to reality as possible?

Because if it is not, it leads to tyranny and dystopia.

The first bulwark against dystopia is The Lore Of Morality or just plainly The Lore.

The Lore Of Morality goes by many names.

Gods Lore.

Natural Lore.

Universal Lore.

Mans Lore.

The law of equity.

Whatever one call's it, Lore is as follows.

Lore is knowledge, customs and guidelines that the wise have discovered is best to live peacefully and harmoniously amongst fellows.

The Lore Of Morality is a formalised construct derived from objective reality via a process of reason which prohibits the violation of rights.

The only exercise of freewill and freedom that is prohibited are actions against others which thieve their consent or cause harm or in some way breach Objective Morality.

If one is to breach another's rights or violate their consent, then a formal arbitration process may be initiated to remedy the situation to prevent further harm and correct the inappropriate behaviour.

Objective morality is a standard of behaviour that is aligned with what is good.

Morality is objective, it is not subjective.

It always remains the same, no matter who you are or where you are, there are no exceptions, for 'gods' or for men, no one is exempt from Objective Morality.

Good can be defined as acts or intentions that are appreciated, welcomed, positive, beneficial or wanted and which do not have a negative effect or intended negative effect.

If behaviour passes through the filter of "treat others as you wish to be treated" then most of the time it will be something which is 'good'.

In essence, morality and ethics are the same thing, the doctrine of man's duty in respect to himself and the rights of others, based upon science, reason and rational thought.

Morality is realised when correct judgement is applied to mans interaction with himself and others.

It's the logical conclusion that if you wouldn't want or would not choose something to be done to you, you should not do it to someone else.

Morality and ethics in general are basic commonsense.

They are not so complicated only a professional philosopher can understand.

But they have become obscured behind a layer of compelxity.

Yet in reality, morality is so simple that even any self aware child is able to comprehend morality to a reasonable degree, if taught correctly.

The Golden Rule Of Equity is to treat others as you wish to be treated.

The logic behind this is that if you treat others in a way that you shouldn't, it is inevitable that someone is going to treat you in a way you won't like.

To ensure you're treated in a way you appreciate, you must appreciate others consent and be respectful.

No one wants to go through life being disrespected or violated.

The best way to live a peaceful, free and happy life is to not disrespect yourself and others. 

Respect is the acknowledgement of yourself as a conscious being able to think, feel and experience, who also has an aversion to pain and suffering.

With this acknowledgement of yourself as such a being, you become aware that other people possess similar faculties to yourself, such as the ability to think, feel and experience pain and suffering.

With the realisation that you want to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible, you conclude that others also realise the same.

At this point, you come across two paths, cause pain and suffering against others so they become too afraid of you and leave you in peace, or honour others the same way as you honour yourself, with respect and consideration.

One path is immoral and leads to dystopia and one path is moral which leads to Utopia.

Self imposed limitations of critical thought is critically dangerous to anyone who wishes to be of healthy mind, body and spirit.

The first violation of morality against another is theft of consent.

The first violation of morality against oneself is apathy.

The Lore Of Morality, which is an objective guideline of what is right and wrong in accordance with verifiable truths of reality anyone can discover, permits anyone to do anything they please, as long as they do not break a Lore or breach another's rights.

Subjective morality and law is the formula for tyranny. 

Those in positions of influence, status or power can decide arbitrarily against you merely because they have the ability to do so when applying subjective law, because it is subjective, meaning it is modular, adaptable, changeable and in essence, irrelevant to reality and only relevant and useful for whoever has the power to apply the subjective law.

Objective lore and morality is unchangeable, absolute and cannot be misinterpreted. It is exact, precise, useful and relevant for everyone.
It is the human races Lore, not the ones in powers Law.

Subjective law is the negation of objective Lore

Objective Lore is the answer and solution to the problem of unfair, unjust and chauvinistic subjective law.

The word objective in objective morality means that which can be clearly defined, interpreted and comprehended by a rational and reasonable consciousness.

Objective means that which is applicable to everyone equally and does not favour any kind of bias or prejudice against those who differ in status, intellect, heritage, culture or any other discernible feature between conscious & intelligent beings.

Objective lore and morality is the opposite of subjective man made law and morality.

For a law or morality to be subjective means that it is not always applicable, it changes from person to person depending on status, position, influence, culture or any other factor.

Subjective morality and man made law is immoral and unethical as it is an incorrect analysis and construct of the true nature of reality.

Objective lore and morality corresponds with reality, subjective law and morality does not.

Subjective law declares that it is in your best interests you have your best interests violated.

Proponents of subjective and immoral law claim that you must hand over part of your income and livelihood to people who will hurt you if you don’t, because they intend to serve you. 

Subjectivists propose that if your money is coerced from you to fund a group of thugs to treat you as an inferior being who is not worthy of living a peaceful life without constant militarised supervision, then it is in your best interests to obey willingly as submitting before dangerous gang members is in your best interests.

The rulers behind the idea of subjective law and order attempt to convince you that it is in your bests interests to have your best interests managed and controlled by someone other than you.

They fool people into believing that the best way to serve yourself is to serve them.

This of course, is illogical and obvious when stated in such a clear and accurate manner.

If it is permissible by law to own a gun in one geographical location in the world, but not in another, this is subjective law and is based upon opinion, not facts and is an illogical nonsensical subjective opinion.

If it is permissible by subjective morality to force a woman to wear a certain type of clothing, but not permissible or socially acceptable in another location, this is again opinion, not objective morality.

If it is permissible to smoke marijuana in one area, but not another, is one more example of irrational subjective opinion being used to dictate behavior, not factual and objective reason.

Objective morality and lore is based upon reason, rationality and what is true, regardless of any external factors.

Subjective law and morality is full of contradictions.

Objective lore and morality has no contradictions and offers an accurate and consistent standard in alignment with the truth of reality.

The basis of subjective law and morality is "This is the law and you must obey whether you like it or not" or "This is how our ancestors have done it and how we will continue to do it to honour their memories".

The basis of objective morality and lore is "No one has the right to initiate a violation of consent.

Not everyone can agree with subjective law and morality, thus it is out of alignment with reality.

Everyone can agree with objective morality and lore as no one wants their consent thieved or violated.

This statement is incontestable.

A criminal may enjoy raping people, but they would not enjoy being raped.

One may argue that a sick and deranged individual may enjoy being raped, yet if they did, it would not be against their consent and thus would not be rape.

Some psychopaths may enjoy murdering others, but they do not want to be murdered themselves, if they did, then it would not be a violation of their consent, it would be respecting of their consent if they asked of someone to kill them.

It may come into question that some may want to bow down and obey a god or ruler, if this is true, then they do so voluntary, with consent.

If one had been tricked, deceived or manipulated into obeying a ruler of any kind and if they knew the full picture would not have done so, then this is a violation of consent through deception.

If one must obtain the consent of another through deception, then it is a violation of consent, even if the the one they violated freely gave consent.

If the one who was being deceived knew they were being deceived, they obviously would not have given consent.

For example, when one is raised in society today and are manipulated into believing that police and government have the legitimate right to rule, and people obey, which they think they do voluntarily, this is not true voluntary and freely given consent.

Freely given consent must be free from deception, manipulation, intimidation, force or coercion.

If consent has been granted in a way which violates the standard of objective morality being "treat others as you wish to be treated" then even if consent was obtained, it is null and void.

Consent can be given and withdrawn at any time based upon the desires of the individual.

If one had given permission to another to touch them, then suddenly decided they do not want to be touched, they have the right to withdraw their permission or consent at any moment.

It is a reasonable thing to forbid others from violating consent as everyone wishes that it is forbidden for their consent to be violated.

To forbid something means to bring awareness to society that particular actions are unacceptable and will require formal remedy if enacted.

Society is a collective construct which is created by everyone participating and interacting as individuals in a group we call 'society'.

Objective morality and Lore is based upon the truth of how everyone, no matter who they are, wants to be treated.

Everyone wants to have their consent respected.

Some people may not wish to be respected for whatever reason, but everyone wants their consent respected.

Not everyone deserves respect, but everyone deserves their consent to be respected.

The only instance where another's consent can be overruled is in the case of self defence.

If another or group of others has initiated a course of action against you or another which will violate yours or another's consent by causing harm or loss, then you have the right to disregard another's consent for your own interests, such as your safety or the safety of another.

If someone was about to attack you or was attacking you with their hands or with a weapon, you have the right to defend yourself in an equal and reasonable manner.

If someone you cared about, whether they were known or unknown to you, was being attacked unjustly, with out just cause or valid reason, then you have the right to assist in their defence.

Not only do you have the right to defend yourself, you have a duty to out of self respect to protect yourself from harmful aggressors.

To allows yourself to be physically violated and assaulted by attackers is a disrespectful act that demonstrates to oneself that they are not worthy of protection and therefore unworthy of rights or even life.

If something is good, it deserves to be defended.

The only exemption is if you are unable to effectively protect yourself and in the course of protecting yourself the attackers cause more harm to you then they otherwise would have.

Objective morality and Lores stems from the idea of care and respect of your fellow man as extension of yourself.

Because you are able to experience pleasure, pain and conscious thought and others demonstrate that they can also feel the same things makes one logically conclude if other people can feel the same things as I do, they must be like me and if other people are like me in what they can experience, I would have to be delusional to desire to unjustly cause harm to beings which are so similar to myself.

If one believed in subjective morality and law, it is a logical contradiction and irrational.

Subjectivism is the inaccurate conclusion that others are unlike yourself and don't feel pleasure, pain, or conscious thought, despite contrary evidence that they can at least feel pleasure and pain, therefore are not worthy of being treated the same as yourself, or the contradictory conclusion that yes others are like me in their experience of pleasure and pain, but I am different to them, therefore I can do to them what I would not want done to myself, based upon a particular belief of superiority to others despite sharing the same experiences of pleasure, pain and conscious thought.

Subjective ideologies about law and morality are irrational and contradictory.

If a man of a certain religion believed that the women in his culture must obey every command of the man, he would only believe and approve of this ideology because he is a man.

If he was to be a woman, he would not like or willingly give consent to be treated like his (now her) consent was meaningless in comparison to a mans.

It is a contradiction, therefore invalid and out of alignment with reality, reality being that which is true.

If something such as a concept or idea is in alignment with reality, that being which is true regardless of ones belief and cannot be contradicted or exposed as being rationally untrue, then it is objective.

The true objective & natural Law of humans is freewill, the ability and power to say yes or no, to give consent or to not.

The Lore is the respect of freewill in the shape of consent formalised into a simple construct explained as the Lores Of Morality.

Morality is the comprehension of what constitutes as a violation of consent and what does not, and is the respect of others free will.

Immorality is the disrespect of another's free will and consent without just cause.

Just cause is the right of reasonable self defence to override another's free will and consent.

If people were not ignorant of The Law, then there would be no need for The Lore.

Said another way, if people respected others freewill, there wouldn't be any reason to write such an essay like this about Lore, morality, right and wrong.

The first protector of The Law is freely given consent.

The first violator of The Law is theft of consent.

In your interaction with others, if one provides you freely given consent, then it is moral.

If you must thieve another's consent through force, deception or coercion, it is immoral.

To be apathetic towards your internal thinking monologue and outcome of actions is to show a lack of concern or interest in life itself.

Apathy is laziness of the mind and to be mentally lazy is disrespectful.

There is no greater insult to the self than to avoid thinking.

Willful ignorance is the most disrespectful and destructive thing a human being can possibly do to themselves.

A man is responsible for his own ignorance.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
 ―     Benjamin Franklin  

When one is able to think rationally, they cannot avoid arriving at logical and objective morality.

Objective morality is to treat others and yourself with respect.

You deserve respect because you are a conscious being with the potential for intelligence and possess the ability to rationalise morality.

If one is so apathetic that they are unable to invest the time it takes to judge their behavior and intentions as moral or not, then they are disrespecting of themselves and are immoral.

If one is unable to show themself respect, they do not deserve it from others.

A man who does not treat himself morally is not a good man.

Nothing good can come from dishonesty.

One who rejects their own rational intelligence and doesn't invest the time to contemplate their morality, logically cannot be good.

The only good people are those who know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong and who choose the right path, who do what is good through self aware choice.

One who has dedicated the time to discover objective morality and chooses to be good, is good.

One who does not, is not.

To qualify as a good man or woman, one must be deserving of such a description by displaying the necessary characteristics.

The required qualities to be classified as a good man or woman are;

- To be self respecting
- To respect others consent
- Dedicated to fulfilling your passions
- Willing to assist others in some form of beneficial contribution

It doesn’t take much to be a good man or woman, respect yourself and the rights of others and you’re practically there.

To be great on the other hand, requires a lot more effort and work than to be merely good.

Good should be the lowest acceptable standard of society, yet it has become a peak very few are able to achieve.

Those who are addicted to their own obstinance, stubborn to the point of unreasonableness in all matters, by definition are unethical criminals.

They betray themselves with their deliberate avoidance of rationality, thus making themself a victim of themselves.

Their laziness either directly or indirectly causes harm to others, as well as to themselves.

To willfully decide to be incurious in matters of morality and other areas of importance is a self judgement that one is unworthy of life and specifically their own life.

Refusing to allow yourself access to one of your most prized possessions, your reason, is a crime where you are the perpetrator and the victim. 

This is the most abundant crime of today, peoples theft and deprivation of their own reason, which causes the crime to be labelled as disrespect and wilful ignorance.

To actively and voluntarily avoid your own reason because of emotional and irrational excuses is incorrect behaviour of a good and rational human being.

One is not born as good or as bad, but as a blank and empty slate, waiting to be constructed and programmed into a good or bad human being.

If the baby grows up to respect themselves and others consent, supports good causes and doesn’t support bad causes, then they become a good man or woman.

If the baby grows up to not respect themselves and others consent, then they have not actually grown up, but have devolved to a pre-baby state and become a bad human being.

Just like a baby has the potential to transform into something other than what it originally began as, so does an adult human being.

Although, a human being without the desire or willingness to change, will not change.

If a human being incorrectly labels themselves as good, contrary to understanding what it actually means to be good, they are unlikely to transform from bad to good, as they falsely believe they are already good, thus don’t think a transformation is necessary. 

The mentality of most bad people is that they can’t rationally or emotionally cope with being wrong, so instead of facing the truth of their character and choosing to transform themselves from unconscious badness, into conscious goodness, they decide to stay the same and do nothing. 

By doing nothing to change, they are choosing to remain as they are, which is not as a good person, so in default must be a bad person.

Neutrality does not exist when it comes to the quality of ones character.

Whenever one does not choose what is right and good, they are automatically voting for and supporting that which is not good, which is either bad or evil, via their lack of support for that which is good.

Just as a light is either on or it is off, a man is either good or bad.

Although a man has the potential to be great, which would be to shine very bright, or the potential to be evil, which would be to actively turn off the lights of others.

To be alive is to be powerful and with power comes responsibility.

Human beings are inherently powerful because we have the ability to kill, rape, rob and cause great misery and suffering to other conscious beings.

Humans of course have the power to do the exact opposite.

If that power is not measured and guided respectfully, responsibly and with care, then one does not deserve the power of life, being the power to make their own choices in the conscious experience we call 'life'.

A human being who is too apathetic to investigate whether or not their actions are moral or immoral is by defaulting logic an evil person.

When one does not have enough heart to care whether the way they behave in the world is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, they are obviously not choosing to be good, are they?

Because the choice to be good can only be acted upon when one comprehends it's opposite, which is bad or evil.

Essentially, evil is to treat others in a disrespectful way, thieve consent and do things to them you would not want done to yourself.

If one is not deliberately, consciously and willfully choosing to be good, logical deduction proves that one is incontestably choosing to be 'bad' and in some cases, 'evil', either directly or via omission of thought.

Omission of thought is to purposefully or ignorantly not consider what should be considered.

Someone may appear 'nice', they may even occasionally do good things, but unless they have the intellectual understanding of what it means to be good and evil and choose the right or good choice in every opportunity where the wrong choice is available, then they cannot possibly be a good person.

For a good person is one who does everything in their power not to make 'bad' or wrong choices.

Any choice which violates your dignity or contributes to the theft of others consent is immoral and unethical.

Any kind of partaking and participation in corruption and the immorality of others is in essence supporting what is wrong and you become an accomplice to a crime, even if only indirectly.

Any kind of involvement, encouragement or contribution towards individuals or organisations who thieve consent is unethical and a violation of The Lore Of Morality.

One who loves and respects themself is unable to make choices which are harmful to themselves or others.

Self hatred is not something anyone is born with, it must be taught to an individual by a sick society.

Only a society made up of self hating sick individuals are able to support the violation and theft of others rights and consent.

Only the traumatised are able to conjure excuses and 'valid' reasons for why they must commit evil to be able to 'survive' in this world.

If immoral behaviour is necessary to survive, than you or the human race does not deserve to survive.

Dependent upon who commits the immoral behaviour of course.

If one disregards their values and morality, especially when not under immediate duress, what value do they offer themselves or the world?

If a large group of people collectively decide to be immoral to ensure their survival, like forced military conscription, slave labour or taxes, then they have no right to survive by the obviousness that they are wrong.

There is no way to justify the continuation of an immoral species.

You can have lies and excuses or you can have truth and results.

There are no exceptions to morality, unless perhaps your very life was immediately threatened by the possibility of extreme violence.

Even then, it should be the hardest choice you ever have to make, to forsake your morality for your life.

There is always a way to survive in this world without needing to deliberately choose to violate your morality.

At times when you have little choice, as in the cases of physical force, used or threatened against you, it is understandable why you may give some ground in your execution of living a correct lifestyle.

In times when there is no immediate danger, then you only have yourself to blame for your cowardice in being unable to maintain your morality.

Deciding to be unconscious in matters of great importance only demonstrates your character, or lack of it.

The best way to live morally is to hold yourself accountable to your true authentic self.

Your true authentic self has an infinitely deep reservoir of courage, love and compassion.

This is true because you are a human being and all humans share the same fundamental values and qualities which make us what we are.

The only difference between people is that some choose to live up to their potential and others don't.

Beneath every individual lost in apathy is a rational, reasonable and intelligent being, just waiting to be realised.

The possibility to transform and become a conscious and caring human being exists for everyone.

Because this is the foundational blueprint of the human mind and spirit, the very nature and essence of "God" or whatever you want to call it. 

This "God" like, or highest truth of all truths, makes up the structure of what you are. 

Whoever you've become after your birth is a direct result of your conscious expansion, or unconscious contraction.

The quality of your character and integrity of your morality demonstrates whether you have chosen to grow your god like spiritual essence or caused it to wither and become less than what it should be.

All it takes for one to evolve and become a moral and respectful human being is for one to exercise their free will, their power to choose, and choose the righteous path.

The moment one chooses irresponsibility and ignorance and submits their life and destiny to an external authority is the moment they have failed in their duty of responsible conscious experience.

The rejection of ones own godhood, the power of life and death, is negligence in ones obligation to accept the gift of life.

Whether you like it or not, whether you chose to come here to earth or not, whether you were created by something else or by yourself, the fact remains, you are here now.

Avoidance of your responsibility to manage yourself appropriately by the laws of reality and the Lore Of Morality is a dereliction of duty.

A powerful law of reality being the fact that if you are alive, you are conscious and by being conscious, you must learn the truth of all things, otherwise you are subservient to lies and not respectful of your own beingness.

Just by being alive, you are obligated, whether you like it or not, to learn the truth of reality, the most important aspect being how you treat yourself and others.

If the laws of reality and Lore Of Morality did not exist, then the game of life could not exist and there may or may not only be chaos.

If the purpose of life isn't to play, enjoy, love and have fun, then it is pointless.

Life only has meaning if it is fun and fun is the love of experience.

If it's not fun, it has no value.

But if you don't know how to play appropriately with yourself and with others, then you don't deserve to be playing because you would be a danger to yourself and others.

Morality is less about being kind and generous to others and more about not causing suffering to yourself and others, through violations of consent and respect.

If one was able to be kind and care for others, then in other moments supported cruelty or a ruling class, then they are immoral, no matter how many good deeds they do, they're unnecessary support of the theft of consent is heavier in weight than the good they can do.

One who was not kind or generous, but who did not cause any harm, directly or indirectly, would be more moral than the person who did 99 good deeds and 1 terrible one.

Sure, one may be more kind and generous than the other, but one is more moral than the other.

It's like the saying, "you can't out train a bad diet".

Although, life with only a lack of negatives and without any positives is not worth living.

Life can only become heavenly when there is the absence of negatives and the abundance of positives.

Learning morality is not choosing to believe in a right way of living.

It's learning that there is only one right way of living. 

It's knowing, not believing, the difference between right and wrong.

It's the knowledge that you and you alone are responsible for the correct evaluation and judgement of your conscience. 

Morality, intelligence and rational thought is not something you can delegate away, to god or another man or woman.

To do so demonstrates your own immorality and disrespect, declaring you are unworthy of the responsibility of living your own life, that you are so child like in your mentality that you require another to make all your choices.

Surrendering in ignorance to a higher power is not a virtuous act of faith, it only shows faith in your inability to rationally think for yourself and your unworthiness to handle the affairs of your own life like any reasonable grown man or woman should.

Yielding to a higher power than yourself is an act of faith in your own incompleteness and lacking because it requires blind belief to unquestionably believe in your own uselessness.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”    
 ―     Richard Dawkins  

It requires belief to think you are useless in setting your own standards and discovering your own philosophy of life. 

Because it's entirely untrue.

Everyone absolutely has the ability to think rationally and know with certainty that to submiss themselves to any kind of higher power is a perversion of what it means to exist as a conscious being.

To unthinkingly abdicate all decision making and responsibility of action to another being which is better than you is like having a child, yet installing a microchip in their brain which forces them to behave in the exact manner you have programmed, while attempting to delude yourself that your child has free will to live a happy and peaceful life.

What would be the point of the child's existence if they could not make any choices of their own?

Why would you create such a child to exist in the first place if they were to only be a slave to a program of your design?

There would be no point.

The child would be a mindless automaton and you the creator would be evil at worst and delusional at best.

When it comes to reason, logic, rationality and correct judgement, you must be accountable to yourself, first and foremost.

If you can't rely upon yourself to determine what you should and shouldn't do, you cannot rely upon yourself to do anything and you do not deserve to exist in a human body with the power and potential to cause harm and loss to others who do value themselves enough to discover objective morality.

How can others trust someone who doesn't trust even their own reason?

If you have the ability to do something and that something is one of the most important things you can ever do in your entire life, discovering morality and living by it, but you choose not to do, what does this say about you?

How is someone who is moral expected to help you if you will not help yourself?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

There is only so much one who is moral can do to assist another who is unconsciously immoral.

If someone is unconsciously immoral, meaning they are not aware of how their actions affect people because they have been too lazy or have not yet considered the consequences of their actions, yet when a moral man broaches the topic of morality and their apathy is replaced with interest, this is a good sign.

If someone who is moral brings up the topic of morality with someone who is immoral and they continue to be apathetic, they now move into the state of being called consciously immoral. 

They are deliberately choosing to do the wrong thing with self aware choice.

Not learning how your actions can have negative consequences makes you a bad person.

Good people don't want to live in a world full of bad people.

Good people want to live in a world surrounded by other good people.

That is why we must as good people be persistent, determined and relentless in our education of the immoral masses of humanity.

Because if we don't even try to educate others, how can we expect change?

If not by us, then by who?

If not now, then when?

Man cannot survive as anything but man. He can abandon his means of survival, his mind, he can turn himself into a subhuman creature and he can turn his life into a brief span of agony—just as his body can exist for a while in the process of disintegration by disease. But he cannot succeed, as a subhuman, in achieving anything but the subhuman—as the ugly horror of the antirational periods of mankind’s history can demonstrate. Man has to be man by choice—and it is the task of ethics to teach him how to live like man.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

- Ayn Rand