Morality is Dualism's screaming daughter.

Dualism as a metaphysical position is in its final stages, dying a messy death, but it is not going out quietly.

Morality is revealing itself as a human abstraction. Anything which can be spoken of non-contextually is an abstraction of the human brain and therefore refers to, or models, reality without itself existing.

Morality is thus a framework, a structure, by which humans may navigate their surroundings. It is an offshoot of the conscious Intellect, that is to say the tool within consciousness responsible for creating linear structures between objects where previously there was none. This structure implies connectivity between its agents, and therefore is relegated strictly the realm of the Ideal. One then comes to find that the Ideal is actually the non-existent, and morality is questioned.

Thus, these so-called structures are symbolic. Symbols obtain their meaning only through existential need, or lack. When a lack is sensed or fulfilled, a symbolic representation is applied thereto. The framework that is built through symbolic manipulation refers, therefore, only to the internal life of the subject manipulating those symbols. Because symbols are not a part of empirical reality they are subject to an ambiguity of identity.

When one discovers the efficacy of a symbolic representation, publicly expressed, one attaches to that symbol the context of the situation in which the symbol was seen to be effective or ineffective at communicating the need. Thus, contextual evidence is responsible for the meaning of symbols, the subjective meaning being altered by existential considerations. The framework that is built by the process results in an Ideal Absolute, the way that subject perceives what 'ought' to be. In 'ought,' all need is met and all symbolic manipulation is relinquished and unnecessary.

Morality, then, is a part of this subjective conceptual framework, wherein the subject devises an Ideal Absolute ('ought') and works to reconfigure the elements of spacial possibility to match this goal. When one holds a morality close to him, he is delineating his own path to the 'ought.' The persons' belief that someone 'ought' to do something or 'ought' not do something, is only a preference signaled by the symbolic interpretation of an act's efficacy towards the subjective 'ought.'

Thus, morality cannot be established, since morality is a subjective preference toward attaining the non-existent Absolute. The Absolute cannot exist but within the head of a subject who has applied a symbolic meaning to empirical events and their linear path to the Godhead.

Morality, then, is a series of preferences expressed by the subject, in which the subject attempts to attain a symbolic singularity of the elements of possibility, a singularity which can only be imagined, not attained--this is because reality is fluid, always producing lack. Morality, then, doesn't exist except as a tool of the Self's own self-preservation tactics. It is, as the Self, a process of reconfiguration, integration and survival.

For example:

Moral (illusion): One 'ought' not be violent.

Preference (real): I would prefer that others are not violent towards me, since I am not violent towards others. My idea of an Absolute utopia is one in which all humans are peaceful; therefore, your attempts at violence sabotage my imagined utopia.


Moral: It is wrong to steal. I am in a comfortable enough position in life that I do not need to steal, therefore I believe no one else should steal either.

Preference: I would prefer that others did not steal my belongings, because in my Ideal world everyone has access to, and can afford, everything they need. If someone steals it goes against my ideal world.

___________________

One's true preferences show through in one's actions, and also are by nature contextual and not universal. Morality, on the other hand, being an abstract conception of 'ought,' implies a universality that is untenable.