Zebedee what morality have you derived from your philosophical enquiries?
Well, pertaining to what may be called 'legal ethics' rather than virtue ethics; an objectively applicable basis for morality.
It's not a new idea. The default 'state of nature' has been talked about by the Enlightenment philosophers.
But just to clarify: I am not committing the naturalistic fallacy and asserting that simply because this is or may be the natural state of humans that therefore it is moral. I'm saying that it is a valid basis for morality as, for one thing, it is the state in which no individual has committed any infraction against any other and so no recompense is owed by one party to another. It is a state of moral equilibrium, which is the default state between all individuals within society.
A key premise of this framework is that it is only in response to an infraction committed against another person that justifies the abridgement of a person's rights or freedom. For example, if you steal someone and get caught, then you have to pay financial reparations. For example, according to my argument, a person or authority cannot arbitrarily dictate that all or certain people have to pay some portion of their own wealth to others.
That is another key premise, the moral injunctions may not be arbitrary. A good example of such an arbitrary moral standard is the permissibility of slavery. The slave in question has done nothing wrong, committed no infraction against any person's rights and yet they themselves have had their freedom of movement, property rights, etc., violated in being taken as a slave. According to my moral standard, slavery is not morally permissible.
That's the essential basis of it. This, I believe, precludes the assertion of arbitrary and unjust moral injunctions which, in fact, permit violations of the rights of others: e.g., the right to take a person as a slave.
I'd also like to clarify what I mean by 'rights.' The term really just refers to certain freedoms which cannot be abridged without justification. You see, it is not the freedom to live or to own property that requires justification, it is only the curtailment of these freedoms that needs to be justified.
All 'rights' are simply aspects of the same thing; i.e., the right not have one's freedoms arbitrarily dissolved or restricted.
I may well have missed a thing or two but that's the basic outline. Feel free to ask me about it or challenge me on it.
Topic: About your videos