Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality, Functions and Existential Implications.
(This article was rejected by Brill Journal of Moral Philosophy. See Journal Rejections for explantion and response.)
Morality is identified as a subconscious innate producer of feelings and thought in the decision making process and in perception. Evidence from the human experience is used to qualify the assertion. Liberty is established as the universal interest of all creatures, in all times, and in all settings. Imposition is the measure of morality. The types of imposition and the categories of imposition within these types are explained. The role of morality in the decision making process is identified. The points of action within a consciously created result are identified for the purpose of applying morality. The implications of liberty based morality are considered as it applies to the purpose of the universe, and the possibility of the survival of consciousness after death.
What is Morality
Morality is the subconscious innate human comparison of detail that assigns moral and immoral judgements to acts based on whether the act is perceived as imposing or unimposing. It is an innate and a subconscious function because in perception of an immoral act the feeling precedes the thought, and in the decision making process at the point of intention a feeling is imposed if the act is believed to be immoral. It is innate because in the absence of understanding why an imposing act is wrong, feelings are produced when an imposing act is witnessed or intended.
Liberty as the Basis for Objective Morality
What is it everyone wants? At all times and in all settings all people want to do what they want to do. All people can do what they want to do so long as they are not imposed on by others. When the liberty of each individual is not exercised to impose on the liberty of anyone else, all people can do what they want to do. Liberty exists in the absence of imposition, where each person is free to do as they please so long as what they do does not interfere (impose on) with others doing as they please.
The second aspect of liberty is opportunity. Opportunity is a product of circumstances. Circumstances are a product of systems. Systems are a product of collective participation and consent. Circumstances that leave people trapped, severely disadvantaged, or otherwise without meaningful opportunity is collective imposition on those individuals. Circumstances are imposed by the participating and consenting public. The concept of fair is the signature of the perception of circumstantial imposition.
Subjectivity in Morality
The perception of imposition is innate. Morality as an effort to understand right from wrong or subjective morality may not actually be morality. Any act that does not impose that is perceived as being morally wrong, is the imposition of subjective value onto others. A subjective moral rule does not appear in the decision making process or in perception the same way that imposition based morality does.
Subjective morality is often authority based. The act is considered wrong based on an authority’s perceived ability to reward or punish. An aversion to an act can be trained, but it is considered as a consequence not as morality, which is something I will clarify in function and distinction in that portion. There is a point in the decision making process (when there is the potential for a negative consequence) where the value of an immediate act is compared to how that act could obstruct other valued purposes. The consequence is considered in the probability of the outcome as well as the severity of the outcome as it relates to other purposes. People are not consciously thinking about risk probability and severity versus the reward, but thoughts relate to consequence in imaging scenarios around the act, the negative outcome, the consequence to other purposes, and internal monologue in sorting details in a risk assessment.
Subjective morality is also produced by associative value. The value of the act is determined by the value of an individual or group. An act may be considered wrong because a person likes the person who told the individual the act was wrong. The sum of the positive feelings produced by the person determines that person’s value, and that value transfers to things associated with that person. A person may adopt that person’s value of the act, but it’s only morality if the act is imposing. Otherwise it is the same as anything else a person doesn’t like for subjective reasons. For example, a person may not like a music group, based on the sound of the music or any other associative factors, where the group is associated with qualities not valued by the individual. A person may even get mad if they’re forced to listen to music, or if the group’s name is mentioned, and may have negative things to say about the group in conversation, but despite the feelings and the dislike it has nothing to do with morality. Subjective morality may function the same as other subjective values which differs from the function of innate morality.
When an aversion to an act comes from a group’s value, in addition to associative value, there is the value of belonging to the group, where the basis of belonging is based on having similar values. Some of these values may be associated with identity and have deeper roots, but aversions to acts that are unimposing is still the promotion of subjective values. In addition, although perhaps existing in traditionally moral premises, aversions to unimposing acts is a product of image promoting. If an act is popularly believed to be wrong, being against the act is perceived as increasing the value of the individual to others, potentially creating more social opportunities which feels good. Yet even in the absence of social opportunities, the perception that the individual’s value has increased to others, or in the idea of being opposed to something that is wrong often carries good feelings with it.
Finally, if subjective morality is actually morality, it functions by the individual perceiving the act as imposing on the authority who established the rule against an act that is unimposing.
Subjectivity in Objective Morality: Determining Moral Perception
Moral judgements and perceiving morality is still subjective even if the standard is objectively rooted in the concept of imposition. Moral judgements are asserted or withheld based on the extent of an individual’s conception of cause and effect. Sometimes, an aversion to an act is so strong that the individual is absolute against an act. This always has the potential to produce faulty moral judgements since there is nearly always the possibility of a circumstantial justification for an imposing act. Rape is the only imposition I’m absolute about perceptionally, because there is no known justification for the act, especially considering there is a market available for sexual services.
Moral perception is a product of understanding functions that produce behavior. The more an individual understands about behavioral functions the greater the depth of their moral perception. A person who understands the motivation for US foreign policy may recognize the moral implications of the use of force, whereas others who have misconceptions about the functioning of US foreign policy do not. Someone may see someone who is homeless and although they may have sympathy for the individual, they may not see anything morally wrong because they do not understand the general circumstances that produce the decisions that cause people to become homeless. They fail to recognize the circumstantial imposition.
Depth in moral awareness does not always lead to more moral judgements. While I personally have a greater moral awareness than most people, I’m also much slower to apply moral judgements for many acts that less aware people are quicker to morally judge. As mentioned in the first paragraph in this section, I require an accurate account of immediate circumstances that may serve as justification for an act, and I’m typically aware of the general circumstances which dampens how I perceive the degree of imposition.
The Evolutionary Purpose of Morality
The evolutionary purpose of morality is to cultivate individual talents and promote cooperation by imposing a negative feeling for behavior that imposes on those purposes, or imposes a feeling when imposing behavior is perceived, where an individual may be motivated to act to remove imposition to rid his or herself of the feeling.
Categories of Imposition
There are 2 categories of imposition, Direct and Indirect.
1: Direct Imposition
Direct imposition occurs when one or more people impose on the liberty of another person. The subdivisions of direct impositions are
A: imposing spatial limitations, physically or through threat where an individual cannot or will not move freely.
B: harm where an act imposes physical pain and injury.
C: Imposition on means, property or income.
D: Deception which imposes on liberty by distorting an individual’s perception of reality and has implications for motivation as it relates to a person’s value of objects, as well as know how.
With the exception of deception, words cannot be considered imposition despite some experiencing emotional reactions as the result of certain things stated. The same thing can be said to two different people the same way, and in one there is an emotional response and in another there is not. The perception of words is subjective and cannot be objectively considered imposition.
2: Indirect Imposition
For an individual to do as they please, it requires the means to do. Means consists of the opportunity to acquire the resources (money) and the know-how to do. Opportunity is determined by the political and economic systems, which whether democratic or otherwise, are subject to collective consent. Systems that circumstantially trap people by providing inadequate opportunities to acquire the means to do, are imposing on individuals through collective consent.
Universal interest is liberty, defined as the ability to do as one pleases. Imposition is the tool used to measure what is good objectively because in the absence of imposition all people can do as they please
Justifications for Imposition
There are 4 justifications for imposition. Preemption, removal, efficiency, and property.
Preemption: Imposition is justified when it is required to prevent imposition.
Removal: Imposition is justified when it is required to restore neutrality by removing imposition.
Efficiency: To understand efficiency as a justification for imposition we have to establish the morality of rules and law. The purpose of law and rules is to agree not to engage in imposing behavior, which causes us to freer with rules than we would be without them. Every rule should prevent more imposition than it imposes, and rules that prevent no imposition are subjective value impositions on liberty. Efficiency is the exception when people are gathered for a purpose like education, or production, where rules increase the efficiency of fulfilling a common purpose. Although a rule does not prevent imposition, a rule may increase efficiency, which causes people to be freer in the sense that they save time in fulfilling their gathered purpose. Net liberty is determined by the extent of the imposition the rule imposes compared to the time gained and/or what is gained in output.
Property: People have dominion over their property. When interacting with someone’s property or within someone’s property the owner may impose subjective value rules and the person interacting with or within that property can choose not to interact with that person with their property if they do not want to be imposed on.
Deception can be justified based on the consequences of the deception in consideration of net liberty.
To forgive a person based solely on the feelings you experience in the idea of forgiveness, is the same as telling a person your imposing or harmful act is okay. If a person no longer applies the same reasoning that led to the imposing act, such a person will make efforts to right the wrong. If they make the wrong right, then there’s no need for forgiveness. If they make no effort to right their wrong, then they’re not worthy of forgiveness, and will likely impose again if forgiven and given the opportunity free of consequence.
The function that produces forgiveness is the perceived value of the relationship or the value of the idea of forgiveness versus the extent of the imposition.
Altruism does not exist in the sense that there is no such thing as a selfless act. Action is motivated by the anticipated feeling an object will produce. A person who engages in a selfless act is still doing so for self serving purposes. The 1st function of altruism is the feeling associated with the sacrifice exceeds the feeling that can be generated from the substance sacrificed. For example, when I see people with signs asking for money, I’ll often give them a dollar or a cigarette or possibly something else that I think they can use. I’m not consciously doing this because I know it will produce a good feeling. I see someone and I’m inclined to help and feel good because of it. I don’t always help, but when I do it’s because the feeling associated with the idea of contributing to the liberation of someone from some circumstance provides me satisfaction that exceeds the feeling I can get from the substance sacrificed.
The 2nd function of altruism is pain avoidance where a person feels obligated. The person helps because not doing so imposes a bad feeling, or the person anticipates feeling bad for not helping. The person sacrifices time or material because the material of the sacrifice is of less value than the feeling of having retained the substance.
The 3rd function of altruism is image. Since altruistic behavior is valued by society, individuals engage in that behavior to associate themselves with a valued quality which they believe increases their value to others. This increases the individual’s value to himself which carries with it good feelings. There may be good feelings associated with altruistic act itself, but image is the primary motivator where the act would not take place for the inherent feelings of the act if not motivated by image promoting feelings.
The functions of altruism are the same for moral intervention in respect to the responsibility to help. There is no actual obligation for anyone to help anyone, with the exception of people who are advantaged in a system that produces disadvantages for others. Even this doesn’t create a personal moral obligation since no individual is personally responsible for systemic imposition on another individual. Whether something small like holding a door or letting someone in in traffic, or a more substantial act where someone’s safety is threatened, the above functions serve as the motivational basis for help.
Morality in Decision Making
Value in the decision making process is the feeling or anticipation of the feeling an object will produce.
The mind is always set to a valued objective in consideration of long term valued objectives, or complex valued objects that cannot be immediately obtained.
There are three elements to the decision making process.
The first is the value of the object compared to the value of other objects the act may obstruct. Risk versus the reward, where risk is considered in the probability of the outcome and the severity of the consequence as it relates to other higher valued objects. The short comparison is the value of the object versus the consequence. When an act involves the possibility of a negative consequence there are thought signatures associated with assessing the consequence. Thoughts in images of the possible and internal monologue to establish whether the negative outcome can be accepted or the likelihood that the negative outcome will occur.
Second is the energy (negative value) required versus the anticipated feeling the object will produce.
Third is morality. Morality objectively is the recognition of imposition, where an act is understood as imposing on someone. Imposition in the moral context is anything that prevents someone from doing what they want to do. This includes imposing on them physically through harm or restraint, imposing on their property which represents means and time, or imposing on their reality through deception which affects motivation and know-how. People are innately able to recognize imposition, but most people’s morality is contaminated by authority, where they perceive acts that are unimposing as morally wrong and there is negative feeling associated with the act. Subjective morality is explained further in the heading after the next.
If the obtainment of an object is imposing there is a negative feeling that occurs during the intention phase of the act. Morality is a governor of the decision making process, where if the negative feeling is greater than the anticipated feeling of obtaining the object, the action will not proceed. Morality as a function of decision making is the value of the object versus the extent of the imposition. Where great value can produce justifications, or even in the absence of justification, great value can cause a person to subordinate their morality to value. By a similar token, a small value object can cause a person to compromise their morality if the imposition isn’t great because the moral restrictive feeling is not great.
Example Decision Making Orange Juice
The decision making process is value versus consequence, energy, and morality. Where there are no consequences or violations of morality, there are no thoughts related to it. For example, if a person is lying on the couch and they want a glass of orange juice, the decision to complete the act is the value of the orange juice versus the energy of procuring the orange juice. The thought signatures may be imagery of the juice and anticipating the experience with the juice based on past impressions from the juice. This may be followed by images of the process of getting the juice. Getting up, walking to the kitchen, opening the cupboard, retrieving a cup, opening the fridge, retrieving the juice, pouring the juice in the cup, returning the juice, closing the fridge, and then walking back to resume comfort increased by the presence of the juice. The thought isn’t likely to include all those points but some of those points may appear as images in the mind while a person considers the value versus effort. There are no thoughts related to the consequence of getting the juice because there are no consequences of the act that obstruct the procurement of higher value objects. Unless there isn’t much juice left and the individual is without the immediate means to purchase more juice. A thought of consequence would consist of the value of the juice now, versus the value of the juice at a later time. The thoughts would be sequences likely consisting of images of the present circumstances and future circumstances, and probably an internal monologue to consciously establish the value of consuming the juice now versus consuming the juice later. No morality is considered because the act is not imposing. Unless of course the juice in the fridge belongs to a roommate. Then morality will need to be overcome. The moral signature will be either a thought to contact the roommate to ask if it is okay to drink the juice, or more likely some justification like he or she won’t care, won’t notice, or the taker will replace the juice.
Understanding a Consciously Created Event
A consciously created result has a predefined sequence I express through the acronym CDIARP. CDIARP is Circumstances, Desire, Intents, Action, Results, and Purposes.
Circumstances include the spatial area a person exists in and has access to, as well as their access to resources which most relevantly consists of their access to money. The immediate space you are in determines your opportunities to create a result. More opportunities can be created depending on an individual’s access to other spaces and access to resources within those spaces, but a consciously created result begins with circumstances.
Desire is a product of value, but the value of a subject is largely determined by circumstances. We begin with circumstances, but desire is also a product of an individual’s values. Motivation begins with circumstances, because circumstances influence an individual’s value of a subject as well as their opportunity. Desire is a product of value influenced by circumstances, and desire becomes intent when an individual has an opportunity to fulfill the subject of their desire.
Intended Purpose: The subject of desire is the intended purpose.
Intended Action: The action an individual intends to create a result
Intended Result: The result an individual intends to achieve his intended purpose.
For example, a person at a carnival desires a stuffed bear. Their motivation is a product of their circumstances consisting of a setting that provides the opportunity to gain a stuffed bear, and the value of the stuffed bear to the person.
The participant must strike a pad with a mallet, the force of which is transferred to a puck that is propelled up a tower where it must strike a bell to win the prize.
The desire is the intended purpose of gaining the bear.
The intended action is striking the pad.
The intended result is the puck traveling to the top and striking the bell, which fulfills the intended purpose, gaining a bear.
The act is a sequence of a consciously created result intended to fulfill the actors purpose.
The effects produced by an action.
The purposes served by the results of an action to all affected parties.
In the scenario where the participant’s action fails to accomplish the intended purpose. The force generated is insufficient for the puck to reach the bell. He fails to achieve his intended purpose winning the stuffed bear. Of course the intended purpose of the owner of the game is fulfilled having retained the bear which contributes to profit.
There is nothing in this scenario that would trigger moral sequencing or true false analysis of contradiction and consistency. Unless the individual in many attempts believes the game is unwinnable, then the man may become angry believing the owner of the game has imposed on his means through deception.
Applying Morality to a Consciously Created Result
Morality is considered at points of action. Circumstances are the first point of action since a person is limited to act by their immediate circumstances, where their means and environment determine their opportunities to act. These are general circumstances, the accumulation of decisions rooted in other circumstances that led the individual to any particular point where those circumstances determined opportunity. Circumstances are a point of action when considering the morality of the act, since the imposing act may be and is often precipitated by imposing circumstances. For example, the lower the household income a person is born into, the more likely they are to end up in prison in their 30s. The correlation between income inequality and crime. The pre-incarceration household income of incarcerated people is less than half the general population. There are many other studies that reveal causation between disadvantaged and trapping circumstances and acts of imposition as indicated by crime.
The individual acts of imposition are not justified, but they are caused by circumstances where collective imposition (consent of imposing systems) has contributed or produced these acts. While the advantaged collective has imposed on the individual through their participation and consent to the systems that produced his individual circumstances, no one has directly imposed on this individual to justify imposition against any specific individual. The content, indifferent, participating, and often advantaged public often bears responsibility for the existence of imposing circumstances, but this responsibility does not create justification for disadvantaged people to commit crimes against the public.
The absence of imposition as it relates to general circumstances consists of time, opportunities for money, and the degree of satisfaction an individual has in what they must do to get money which is considered an element of time.
If an act or the result of an act is imposing, immediate circumstances is the first point of action that has to be considered when applying a moral judgement. Immediate circumstances differ from general circumstances in that immediate circumstances consist of some imposition taking place that produced or necessitated an imposing act.
Intentions are difficult to know observationally, but often can be deduced based on the circumstances, the action, and the result in consideration of what value exists to the individual in possible outcomes. An act may produce an imposing result, but if it is not intended to produce such a result the individual is not acting immorally. The individual still has an obligation to make the injured party whole based on the result, but the individual hasn’t done anything morally wrong if the imposition was not intended.
Morality can be applied to acts based on whether the act is imposing or unimposing, or whether the act produced a result that imposes based on the purposes of the affected parties.
Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True
The heading above is not philosophy, it is the identification of the intelligent value of the truth as it relates to liberty. First, liberty is true because all the results on this planet are the product of the free will of the creatures on this planet and laws of physics. Second, because all creatures at all times want to do what they want to do.
People consume information that reinforces their beliefs and avoid information that challenges their beliefs. This occurs because there are positive feelings attached to the people and ideas associated with those beliefs. The subconscious mind is set to objectives that produce good feelings. When an individual is exposed to information that challenges their biases there is a negative feeling imposed because in showing someone something is false they believed true, or wrong they believed right, it takes away the ability of those ideas to produce those good feelings. Whether you accept the function that the bad feeling imposed is a product of the subconscious protecting value or not, the behavioral function is still an aversion to information that challenges beliefs because of the feeling imposed.
The previous function was discovered in an effort to understand denial, and reflecting on times in my life where I experienced negative feelings when what I believed to be true was challenged, as well as observing others. Every person at some point in their life has experienced these feelings, it is evidenced by the human experience and I presume there is research to support this function.
Denial and self deception is a product of having a higher value of things than an individual has of the truth. When an individual recognizes the utility of truth to liberty and establishes truth as the highest value, the subconscious does not initiate a protective response. I know this having been of varying perspectives during my life, where changes in my understanding eliminated biases. Self deception harms the interest of the individual as well as the interests of the collective.
Individual interest is harmed first in value. Believing things that are false about objects changes their value. People like things they would not like if they knew what was true about them, and this affects their motivation, where they do what they would not do. Second, it impacts know how, where they are functioning in a space with a false understanding of it functions. Truth is the observation of function, cause and effect.
The collective interest is harmed by self deception because communication cannot meaningfully take place. People prefer the version of reality that feels good as opposed to objective reality. Worse still, there are often many preferred versions of reality around popular subjects, and none of them are grounded in the facts of function a subject consists of. Human beings cannot meaningfully communicate when they are incapable of objectively exchanging information.
Self deception is the root of all evil because it obstructs communication which harms the collective interest in more ways than personal disputes, but as it relates to systems and collective decision making that determines opportunity. What is evil but harming the interests of others, or imposing on their liberty? What is stupidity but harming your own interest and imposing on your own liberty? Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True is the intelligent value of the truth as it relates to liberty. It is part of a broader theory of the subconscious mind I am working on called Sequencing, Comparison, and Assignment, but it is mentioned here in brevity because it’s a moral issue, since it imposes on the individual and imposes on the collective.
Liberty as a Social Evolutionary Check on Intelligent Life
Understanding and applying liberty as a species including the organization of civilization to reflect this paramount value, may be a social evolutionary check on intelligent life. One distinction between intelligent life and non-intelligent life is the ability to consciously manipulate energy for productive purposes. The evolution of intelligent life requires earth-like conditions and millions of years for simple life to develop into complex and intelligent life. This means anywhere in the universe where intelligent life evolves there will be fossil fuels. Intelligent life will eventually discover uses for these fuels to facilitate the fulfillment of their purposes. Burning these fuels will increase the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere which will increase the global temperature. What human beings are presently experiencing on Earth is likely experienced by every intelligent civilization that has or will exist in the universe.
A species that fails to learn, apply, and organize with liberty in mind, is unlikely to be able to transition to renewable energy, because the tyrant does not apply morality to decision making. The tyrant imposes when it serves his purposes, and is only persuaded not to impose by consequence. As previously mentioned, this has all sorts of implications in the promotion of deception, self deception, as well as in economic and political function as we observe on this planet. A mode of tyranny prevents the transition to renewable energy and will prevent the peaceful redistribution of populations from uninhabitable to habitable areas.
It’s arguable that a tyrant species could transition and peacefully redistribute the population. The issue is every space that exists in tyranny is dominated by groups, some of whom have control over the civilization’s energy, and will seek to maintain that control as the source of advantage within that civilization. There will always be groups trying to increase their power relative to other groups. A global civilization is impossible under tyranny because of contention, and it is undesirable by liberty because it constrains the diversity of subjective values. Implications being that absolute control of the masses by one dominant group where this group would respond to climate change, transition to renewable energy, and peacefully redistribute populations from increasingly uninhabitable areas to habitable areas is extremely unlikely.
A species that fails to transition to renewable energy if we consider the most probable trajectory of human beings ceases to exist. I think the most likely course for human beings will be substantial use of fossil fuels over the next 5 to 6 decades, which will increase the concentration of heat trapping gases, increasing the global average temperature, which will substantially reduce habitable surface area, and the competition over habitable areas will culminate in the use of nuclear weapons. The previous sentence requires substantial substantiation and is the subject of other articles I’ve written that I have not published. I’ll leave the assertion contestable, but I mention it as a possible consequence of this species’ lack of morality.
The Implications of Liberty as the Basis for Morality and the Survival of Consciousness After Death
The idea of the survival of consciousness after death is appealing to human beings because having existed you don’t want to not exist anymore. There is a bias in all of us to believe that consciousness survives death. To me, the idea is believed to be probably true because of the moral and logical implications of causing something to exist temporarily, and then not exist anymore.
Morally, to create a universe that allows for conscious beings to come into existence only for those beings to stop existing is imposing. Since any consciousness or group of consciousnesses that is, would not want to stop existing, then to cause something to exist and take that existence away is imposing. Any god or gods no matter how powerful, cannot violate their own morality, and the principle basis for morality is imposition.
The only purpose the universe serves is to host life, and life is probably fairly common throughout the universe towards the outer areas of galaxies. What purpose does life serve?
Consider a higher dimensional form of life, conscious beings that can endlessly create through conscious will in an infinite non-material space. How can a consciousness reproduce? Say at its earliest point it exists with 10 separate beings. How long does it take with the experience of those beings in an environment with no physical limitations to create everything they are interested in creating and do everything they are interested in doing? It doesn’t matter because you have an eternity to do it so eventually existence becomes stale. Liberty, which requires the absence of imposition, wilts under the imposition of existence where all things desired have lost their value due to over exposure, and experience is limited by the same beings possessed of the same knowledge and subjective values.
Consciousness has to be able to reproduce in an unknown setting to create enough diversity of experience and values to fuel the eternal pursuit of creation and experience. The universe is like an egg where energy is introduced into a space with physical laws, and the random assembly, distribution, and interaction of this energy produces new beings, with new experiences and new values to contribute to creation and experience.
What I propose as the probable trajectory for existence is similar to heaven and hell. Heaven is eternal liberty and the introduction into a community that exists in the absence of imposition, not servitude to a benevolent dictator as expressed in popular religions. For those who believe in god, god’s morality as evidenced by the universe is based on liberty. A tyrant god would impose on his creation often and arbitrarily as it served his purposes. There is no evidence on the planet of any supernatural influences, which is evidence of god’s morality. If god imposed or intervened on behalf of any party he’d be violating his morality by imposing on human beings. The point is, god cannot violate his own morality, and therefore god cannot impose on a being that intends no imposition.
The previous paragraph mentions god as the creator and is for those who believe in god. God the source is unknowable because any being that has a beginning can never know if what they’re encountering is god the source or something in between. More importantly, a person whose morality is governed by liberty, is on equal footing morally with all other beings. This is why I don’t believe there is one supreme being in a space of liberty accessible to liberty applying consciousness after death. It is more likely a space inhabited by many beings whose morality is identical, where each being does what it pleases and all is good because it does not interfere with others. The distinction between beings is what they like, and how the different things they like directs attention and the pursuit of experience.
Hell should exist for two reasons. 1st because consciousnesses of liberty and consciousnesses of tyranny cannot exist in the same space. The propensity of the tyrant to impose is at odds with the necessity of liberty to prevent and remove imposition to maintain neutrality. Which means there has to exist separate space or destruction of tyrant consciousnesses. 2nd, because the tyrant isn’t being punished for imposing acts, the tyrant in liberty has chosen tyranny as his mode of operation, so liberty gives the tyrant what he chooses.
Duration is not a point of disproportion because we are talking about a chosen mode of function. If not limited by death, the tyrant would continue to impose for an eternity where opportunity presented itself and consequence is absent. The space of tyranny will have a hierarchy with dominant and subordinate groups and individuals. A figure like the devil would be the supreme dominant individual within that space. He would be motivated to impose either by the satisfaction of punishing the tyrants in his love of liberty, or the satisfaction of asserting himself as supremely dominant in that space. Proportion of imposition is irrelevant because it isn’t about the acts, it’s about what a tyrant would do, if he could do, based on the absence of morality.
If I’m wrong, the morality of liberty is still right, ideal, and completely consistent. My conception of existence is more probable, morally consistent, and more consistent with what can be inferred from the physical reality than other conceptions of existence. Again, liberty is true, consistent, the human ideal, and the basis for objective morality.