Is "Morality" subjective

It is popular to contend that morality is subjective and that in an absolute sense that all moral-systems are equal. It is unpopular to argue that some moral-systems are inherently superior to others.

I guess today is the day I am meant to disappoint others and to be unpopular.

When morality does depend on circumstances

It is always possible to find extreme situations around the edges of the "map" where the margins read "Thar be Dragons".

For example, the Donner Party or UAF Flight 571 where survivors resorted to cannibalized deceased members of the party.

Finding an exception in Thar be Dragons does not invalidate a general statement.

The case that some moral systems are superior to others

Consider two moral systems that self-extinguished: Jim Jones's cult and the Shakers. Both are now extinct. Can anybody make a credible case that either of those cults are the equal of moral-codes that still exist? How can they be equal when they don't exist in any measurable way and can no longer provide guidance on day-to-day issues?

I suppose the contrary will argue that they were BETTER than existing moral-codes. An environmental zealot might make that argument, for instance. That is fine, but you just proved my point; that some moral-systems are "better" than others.

How to rank them?

In the dry language of engineers, "extinction" is a high entropy event. "Irreversibility" is another way to describe entropy. If you put an ice cube into a hot cup of coffee and stir it for five minutes it is almost impossible to recover the undiluted, hot coffee and the ice cube without increasing entropy (irreversibility or disorder) outside the system.

From a practical standpoint, systems that are pathologically high-entropy almost always lose wars when they wage them against systems that are significantly lower-entropy. That is due to lower-entropy systems generally having more population and higher technology.

Sparta, who murdered their weakest sons lost to Athens. The American-Indians who were bedeviled by enormous infant and child mortality lost to Europeans.

A moral system that encourage rape of the landscape is a high-entropy system. A moral system that fosters stewardship of the landscape is a low-entropy system.

As a side-note, here are two verses from Deut Chapter 20:

When you are at war with a city and have to lay siege to it for a long time before you capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are the trees of the field human beings, that they should be included in your siege?

However, those trees which you know are not fruit trees you may destroy. You may cut them down to build siegeworks against the city that is waging war with you, until it falls.

Viewed through the lens of entropy, that language looks like a very strong commitment to stewardship and long-term viability for humans.

Did the spread of Islam create the Sahara Desert?

Some blamed the growth of the Sahara Desert on the growth of Islam. The contention was "The Arabs were not the sons of the desert, but the fathers of it."

The style of warfare preferred by Jihadist during its rapid assent favored open plains and was hampered by trees and cover. The argument is that Islam destroyed trees on principle.

Even though the Quran (Surah Hashr Ayat 5) has language prohibits the cutting of date-palms it has been accepted as "OK" during Jihad since Jihad is Allah's will. All other trees could be cut at at-will.

It seems doubtful that cutting all of those trees CAUSED the Sahara Desert but it probably accelerated its spread.

Also on the topic of stewardship

Communism is the abolition of private property. In general, most people take much better care of their own property than they do of "community" property.

"Beat it like a rented mule" is a saying that comes to mind.

"Tragedy of the Commons" is another saying that comes to mind.

Ipso facto, Communism is an inferior moral system than a system that favors private property.

For the same reasons, the hook-up culture is inferior to dating and marriage.

The idea of mixing

Entropy is often introduced as "mixing". A spoonful of sugar mixed with a glass of water cannot be recovered without applying outside energy to evaporate the water. One key point is high-entropy requiring outside resources to return to its starting state.

Consider a classroom with two pupils. John is a whiz at math and shop. Sebastian is a dreamy poet who likes to draw pictures.

A high-entropy system would demand equal outcomes and pour enormous amounts of energy teaching John to write poetry and to draw pictures as well as Sebastian while pouring equally large amounts of resources trying to pound math and shop into Sebastian's brain. Because outcomes are most important, John is starved for math and shop instruction and Sebastian is starved for poetry and art instruction.

A low-entropy system would give John MORE math and shop classes and fewer poetry and art classes while giving Sebastian MORE poetry and art classes and fewer math and shop. The NET learning would be much higher for the low-entropy system. If the concept was extended across the society, there would be higher net-carrying capacity and greater capacity to fight wars.

Suppose, on the other hand, a moral system randomly decided that half of the population could receive absolutely zero formal instruction. Random in the sense that it was totally disconnected from the (potential) student's ability to learn. That would be a failure of stewardship and is a special case of the high-entropy moral system. There are some moral systems in the world today that forbid educating women and "unbelievers".

IS THERE ANYBODY I HAVEN'T PISSED OFF TODAY. LEMME KNOW. I AM ON A ROLL!!!