Like all people likely think, I believe the moral system I adhere to is not only reasonable, but more moral, effective, and ethical than that of other philosophies. The Law of Thelema is a moral axiom that states that the only law is to do ones true will. True will is then defined and explained as ones "proper course through life." For example, if you've decided all your life to be a counselor, have the natural born skills it takes, desire such a course, etc, this would be considered ones true will. If instead you become a dentist like mom and dad, you are putting their will over yours, and in the end will be less happy as well as useful to others as well. In other words, it's a moral axiom of individual freedom, allowing and aiding those to find and achieve their true will.
As far a Setianism, I think it can be simplified and expanded upon. We are each unique, isolate, self owned individuals, and control over that individual self is central. Through respecting individuals as free, independent agents, individuality becomes the center of morality, as opposed to something external. Setianism also accepts the fact that self care and actualization is key to a better life, both for the individual and, in effect, society as a whole. It's not about pleasing a deity, it's about taking care of oneself and society. People should be judged on individual merit and action alone, and they should be encouraged and aided in attaining their goals, in reaching self actualization.
Obviously in religions like Christianity and Islam, this is a big problem. Probably for all religions who sacrifice the self to the greater whole, or rely on external morality. In these religions, morals are valuable because they are the will of the creator, and not adhering to them can cause eternal punishment. Some individuals do not even understand how morality can be valid without god, a fact I find quite terrifying.
On the other hand, certain morals systems do not accept human free will, which generally leads to a more nihilistic (strick relativism) moral system, rather than an existential (soft relativism) or divine (moral objectivity) moral systems. I personally believe that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, an ability to fight against natural drives, reactions, emotions, and so on. If we do not have free will, even existential morality is useless because people are not responsible for their own actions. A judicial system absolutely relies on the idea that people are responsible for their actions.
To summarize:
I think the individual is the center of the morality. We must take care of the self first, otherwise we cannot even help others to any extent. Selfless systems of morality are invalid, because in the end you need to care for your own well being in order to be of any use to others. I also think that we are responsible for our own actions, at least in general (allowing of course for mental disability, things of that nature). Therefore, systems of morality which do not accept free will are also invalid, or at least must be treated as so, else no system of judgement could work. This places me at odds with probably a vast majority on both sides, haha. In the end I think a more self focused system that puts an influence on free agency is the most reasonable and effective moral system.
As far a Setianism, I think it can be simplified and expanded upon. We are each unique, isolate, self owned individuals, and control over that individual self is central. Through respecting individuals as free, independent agents, individuality becomes the center of morality, as opposed to something external. Setianism also accepts the fact that self care and actualization is key to a better life, both for the individual and, in effect, society as a whole. It's not about pleasing a deity, it's about taking care of oneself and society. People should be judged on individual merit and action alone, and they should be encouraged and aided in attaining their goals, in reaching self actualization.
Obviously in religions like Christianity and Islam, this is a big problem. Probably for all religions who sacrifice the self to the greater whole, or rely on external morality. In these religions, morals are valuable because they are the will of the creator, and not adhering to them can cause eternal punishment. Some individuals do not even understand how morality can be valid without god, a fact I find quite terrifying.
On the other hand, certain morals systems do not accept human free will, which generally leads to a more nihilistic (strick relativism) moral system, rather than an existential (soft relativism) or divine (moral objectivity) moral systems. I personally believe that we do indeed have at least some degree of free will, an ability to fight against natural drives, reactions, emotions, and so on. If we do not have free will, even existential morality is useless because people are not responsible for their own actions. A judicial system absolutely relies on the idea that people are responsible for their actions.
To summarize:
I think the individual is the center of the morality. We must take care of the self first, otherwise we cannot even help others to any extent. Selfless systems of morality are invalid, because in the end you need to care for your own well being in order to be of any use to others. I also think that we are responsible for our own actions, at least in general (allowing of course for mental disability, things of that nature). Therefore, systems of morality which do not accept free will are also invalid, or at least must be treated as so, else no system of judgement could work. This places me at odds with probably a vast majority on both sides, haha. In the end I think a more self focused system that puts an influence on free agency is the most reasonable and effective moral system.
