Personally, I feel that morality is a spook but, for the sake of discussion, I’m just gonna speak about it as if it’s not.

Morality is rooted in desire, which stems from influence, knowledge, imagination, and sense perception.

I appreciate the empiricist take, but this chain of influence feels a bit too reductive. While sensory perception and imagination certainly play roles in moral reasoning, this seems to ignore the evolutionary and social dimensions of morality. This is understandable to do if you’re religious, but I find it incomplete when framed through empiricism. Moral Foundations Theory suggest that moral instincts (e.g., care/harm, fairness/cheating) evolved to address group survival challenges. If we stop at desire, I can see how that could account for morality’s deep ties to communal needs and power structures, but glossing over this and boiling it down to sense perception seems too narrow. Is this what you meant regarding psychology and sociology?

Choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages our higher reasoning and self-control.

I think this framing creates a false binary between instinct and reason. You may have had a particular context in mind here, but the context matters too much to not specify. For marginalized people facing systemic violence, self-defense or resistance isn’t “barbarism”—it can be a necessary act of survival or even, arguably, a moral imperative. While self-control can be virtuous in some cases, retaliation isn’t inherently immoral; it depends on the circumstances. I assume you can agree with this, as your core thesis seems to be a utilitarian one rather than deontological

Humans exhibit unparalleled selflessness due to their ability to imagine others’ experiences.

This feels anthropocentric, which I understand, if you’re religious, but altruism exists in many non-human species—primates share resources, elephants mourn their dead, and dolphins help injured peers. While humans have unique capacities for abstract reasoning, selflessness isn’t exclusive to us. Moreover, even human altruism often has roots in reciprocal benefits or social expectations.

What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone?

I’m confused about your goal/purpose with this. Is your primary argument that people ought to utilize religious frameworks for morality, or that they don’t need to? Or something else? It seems to me that you raise a good argument for secular ethics, but I get the feeling you didn’t intend to.

Love enhances moral reasoning by fostering openness and empathy.

Framing morality as love is sweet, and nice to read, but moral decisions often involve competing values—like justice or autonomy—that can conflict with love. Additionally, centering love risks excluding those who struggle with traditional notions of empathy due to trauma or neurodivergence.

I almost asked if you’re a pastor lol.

I’m glad you like it!

I’m not sure that I understand what you’re saying, but I’d like to respond once I have a confirmed understanding. Is this an accurate rewrite? I feel like kind of a dick doing this, but I hope it’s welcomed

The Foundation of Morality, Selflessness, and the Logic Within Religion

Vanity, Morality, and the Chain of Influence

“Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” – Solomon
“Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” – Gandhi

If morality is the foundation of human behavior, then what underpins morality itself? Here’s a proposed chain of influence:

• Morality is rooted in desire,
• Desire stems from influence,
• Influence arises from knowledge,
• Knowledge depends on imagination,
• Imagination is shaped by our sense organs reacting to our present environment,
• And all of this depends on how conscious we are of these processes.

The more open-minded we are to outside influences, the richer and more detailed our imagination becomes. Love plays a key role here—it influences our reasoning, compassion, and empathy. A loving mind is more willing to consider new perspectives (e.g., a divorcé changing his identity after finding a new partner). This openness enhances our ability to imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes and understand their experiences.

Instinct vs. Reason: A Choice Between Barbarism and Logic

When someone strikes us, retaliating appeals to our primal instincts—the “barbaric mammal” within us. But choosing not to strike back—offering the other cheek instead—engages our higher reasoning and self-control. This choice reflects the logical, compassionate side of humanity.

Observing Humanity’s Unique Potential

If we observe humanity objectively, we see beings capable of imagining and acting on selflessness to an extraordinary degree—far beyond any other known species. Whether or not one believes in God, this capacity for selflessness is unique and profound.

What if we stopped separating morality (traditionally associated with religion) from observation (associated with science)? What if we viewed morality through the lens of observation alone? Religion often presents morality in terms of divine influence or an afterlife, but this framing can alienate people. By failing to make these ideas credible or relatable, religion risks stigmatizing concepts like selflessness or even belief in a higher power.

The Potential for Good Amidst Evil

Humanity has always had the potential for immense good because of its ability to perceive good and evil. Even after centuries of selfishness or suffering, this potential remains—just as humans once dreamed of flying or creating democracy before achieving them.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “We can’t beat out all the hate in the world with more hate; only love has that ability.” Love—and by extension selflessness—is humanity’s greatest strength.

Key Takeaways from Wisdom Throughout History:

• “Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality.” – Gandhi
• “Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be.” – Leo Tolstoy
• “Never take an oath… Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more comes from evil.” – Jesus (Matthew 5:33)
• “The hardest to love are the ones that need it most.” – Socrates

In summary, humanity’s capacity for selflessness is unparalleled. By combining observation with moral reasoning—and grounding it in love—we can unlock our greatest potential for good.

Mohamed, Ph.D

🏵️🏵️The essence of thinking like a soulist reflects a deeper connection to one’s purpose and understanding of life. In Islam, we are reminded that every soul is significant, as stated in the Quran, “And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right” (Quran 17:33). Recognizing the divine purpose behind our thoughts and actions is fundamental. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasized the importance of intention, declaring that “Actions are but by intention.” When embracing a soulist mindset, focus on purifying your heart and intentions, aligning them with the teachings of Islam.

Thank You, Vi- Grail, for Your insightful reflections. Your thoughts bring to light how essential it is to nurture our souls, Vi- Grail.

What steps will You take to align Your mindset with this deeper spiritual understanding?

Mohamed, Ph.D

I don’t think Mohamed read Your article

Yes, I use capitalised pronouns.

Fixed! Thanks for the link- another good read

I’m not implying that part

Huh- so if You make a statement like that, and a pedant says something like “akshually, [thing] doesn’t really exist so that’s not objectively true,” Your response to that is “It’s a subjective truth” rather than- as I would say- “That’s implied- it’s objectively true within the implied context”?

Having written that, I realize we’re saying the same thing lol. Before this conversation, however, I would’ve said “obviously that’s implied” because I didn’t realize that isn’t the way other’s think about these things. Is this still “thinking like a soulist” though?

Everyone agreed that George Lucas doesn’t understand Star Wars very well.

Lol that’s so funny. (And valid)

Edit: I think I figured it out. I’m treating “objectivity” like a subjective thing, because that’s what makes sense to me, but that’s not how others think of it, and Your point is that it doesn’t exist at all (which I think is the same thing I’m saying- because if objectivity is subjective, then it isn’t objective, and therefore doesn’t exist)

This just feels like funny semantics?

When I say “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father”, the rest of the sentence “in the fictional Star Wars universe” is implied. When you consider the implied part, the statement is an objective truth. The objective truth in a work of fiction is either decided by the creator or is unknowable.

In other words, the implied statement that I don’t say out loud because it’s unnecessary and pedantic is “The character ‘Darth Vader’ is, according to the creator, George Lucas, the father of the character ‘Luke Skywalker’ in the fictional ‘Star Wars universe’.”

Are other people not implying that part when they say things like that? I’m autistic and this is a genuine question.

Edit: to be clear though, I do understand ‘subjective truth’ when it comes to things like interpreting art and such- like I get why that’s a term

Edit #2: I remember there being a user on Lemmy that uses capitalized pronouns. Is that You? Should l be capitalizing Your pronouns? (Asking bc of Your username)

Ah okay, so it is me who’s having trouble with the word “truth”.

To me, the default definition of ‘truth’ is objective truth, but in this context it’s more broad than that, right?

So when You said “usefulness decides truth”, I read it as “usefulness decides objective truth” (which I see now is not the correct way to understand what You wrote).

“subjective truth” just seems like an oxymoron to me, though I see it’s a fairly hot topic now that I’m looking into it

Regarding Your practical example, I would argue that “woman” is a social construct which objectively exists. Though I get what You’re saying and I agree

Thank You for sharing your article and discussing it with me btw (also I really enjoy Your writing style)

How much does it cost to Luigi the CEO of a company that kills shrimp?

Just stop eating animals

It sounds like They describe soulists as arguing that the truth is unknowable, so believe nothing and simply use the most helpful assumptions as a guide.

And elsewhere it sounds like They’re saying soulists delude themselves into fully believing those most helpful assumptions as objective truth

That’s an important difference

i think i think, therefore i might as well be

Lol i love this- I want it on a shirt or something

No I’m not trying to imply any contradiction there. I meant the parts I quoted

+1 for absurdism

You now:

no meaning :(

You after absurdism:

no meaning! :)

Soulists believe that if objectivity exists, it’s inaccessible to human minds at our current level of development. And if beliefs can’t be sorted by objective truth, then our criterion for deciding what we should believe is by how useful a belief is.

Okay, reasonable

Or in simpler terms, usefulness decides truth.

Wait what?

If the big questions are unsolvable, you don’t stress over them, you do what you can.

Okay yeah, that’s me, and I’d think most reasonable people as well.

It is me, or the author, who’s having trouble with the word “truth” (and “believe”)?

This same author, in another article, defines ‘soulism’ as basically anarcho-antirealism. Outside of that, it’s hardly been written about, so They kinda get to define it however They want, but Their description seems to contradict itself

Ik this is about me, so I’m gonna let others respond, but I thought I’d rewrite this for you so it’s easier to follow.

Supposition refers to an uncertain belief. This means that claiming there is no reason or explanation for things is just as much a supposition as asserting that there is a reason.

When we say that there is no “why” or reason behind events, we carry the same burden of evidence and explanation as when we argue the opposite. Thus, stating that there is no reason for things does not diminish the validity of any supposition. Both positions—whether something exists or does not exist—can be seen as based on metaphysical assumptions.

Otherwise, would you not also suggest that scientific theories aren’t worth our time and energy to consider? If scientific theories are indeed rooted in metaphysical assumptions, does that mean concepts like the Big Bang theory are not worthy of our attention or contemplation?

Lmao this was so funny to read (bc of of the whole “an is/isn’t” thing- not bc of your thoughts/etc).

I know it’s not necessarily the most accurate term, but I think you know what definition of metaphysical I intended when I used that word.

If you say “unicorns exist” and I say “unicorns don’t exist” that’s on you to provide evidence.

I just think you should’ve said “supposing there is a why as to the existence of intelligent life, the most logical…” But I see you’ve edited the title, so it’s moot now regardless.

I don’t assume/claim there isn’t, but stating that there is seems like a more significant assumption- one worthy of shouldering the burden of evidence/explanation (I won’t say proof for obvious reasons).

Your post is about ‘the most logical explanation’ for an idea entirely predicated on a metaphysical assumption (something many would not consider ‘the most logical’)

I didn’t read the content of your post because you assume there’s a “why” at all, so that may be what they’re referring to