Individual morality is not a social matter. The human conscious process shows that ethics are our life-supporting choices that, in turn, almost invariably become life-supporting actions or moral behaviour. 

This does not mean that ethics and morality are naturally inherent, but the means for their accomplishment are. Ethical thoughts and moral actions are conducive to values embraced by the protective and supportive functions of the subconscious mind, and free will choices determine their presence or absence.

Because our fully automated subconscious mind envelopes free will, value communication between our two minds is more spiritual than material. This communication is known as psycho-epistemology, and its study reveals that the engine of ‘integration,’ encrypted in our human nature, drives the conscious process, yet we (free will) author the content that it processes. Content and process are two different elements of what we call consciousness.  

Ethics Morality Justice

Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand showed us that every man’s highest moral purpose is the achievement of his happiness. She taught the world about the morality of happiness,  individual morality, what it is, and how to achieve it.

No one can dispute this objectivity in life and the values and facts of nature without relinquishing their nature. The prime tenets of an objective philosophy and our conscious process are axiomatic, meaning we must use them to dispute them. They unite as one unstoppable power consented, validated, and endorsed by nature, all reproach and dissent denied, all naysayers sent packing, never to return.

Individual morality

As just described, conscious intelligence reveals the relationship between ‘private’ ethics and ‘public’ morality. 

Ethically: Life demands our wilful choice to support and sustain it, never sacrificing its supreme value to anything lesser. Thoughts, desires and goals that uphold one’s life are ethical—those that do not, are not. 

Morally: Life impels us never to act to deprive another of his or their life or the means to support and sustain it. Actions that respectfully uphold the lives of others are moral—those that do not, are not.

Nature has modelled the (natural law) principles of ethics, morality, and natural justice, smack in the core of our conscience and emotional reporting systems, exactly where they belong! Several results manifest once ‘ethics’ is ascribed to the thought process and morality to behaviour.

• Most of today’s beliefs concerning ethics and morality are overturned.
• Ethics and morality are separated from each other as objective sciences. 
• Justness and justice concern (moral) actions, not prior (ethical) intentions.
• Ethics and morality are removed from the public domain of government and placed squarely in the private domain of sovereign individuals to which they rightfully belong.
• All ‘collectivised’ jurisdictional claims over ethics and morality are invalidated.
• ’Moral relativism’ is irrevocably crushed.

Ethics is paramount to Individual Morality

This suggests a science or code of ethics devoted to nature’s codes of conduct, specifically how men and women should think of life values and life itself, oneself and others. For example–

• Life: Nothing is more pertinent to every man, woman, or child on earth than life itself. Life is the base reference for all that concerns it. Life differentiates ethics from its lack and morality from immorality.
• Virtues: Virtues are attitudes, values, or developed character traits that enable us to act in life-supporting ways to foster and master our potential. These uphold our spiritual essence.
• Respect: Respect is the voluntary endorsement of the vital need to support one’s life by lawfully exercising one’s faculties. The same applies to not hindering or harming the lives of others. 

The Value Transfer Wave (above) shows a point at which our cognitive thoughts and intentions cease, and subconscious enactment begins. This simple fact shows that ethics precedes morality. Both have been modelled by nature’s source Creator right in the heart of our conscious process in sequential order in full support of our lives and societal dealings with others. The difference is unmistakable.

• Ethics is personal. It concerns our thoughts and intentions 
• Morality is social. We manifest morality by our actions.

Yet we’ve all been brainwashed to believe the exact opposite. People are taught that morality concerns our thoughts and intentions, while ethics refers to rules of conduct for professional business practices such as medical and legal services. That error needs correction.

• Ethically: Life demands our wilful choice to support and sustain it, never sacrificing its supreme value to anything lesser. Thoughts, desires and goals that uphold one’s life are ethical—those that do not are not. Ethics are expressly divorced from morality. Ethics apply to thinking and deliberation before choosing an action.
• Morally: Life urges us never to act to deprive another of their life or the means to support and sustain it. Actions that respectfully uphold the lives of others are moral—those that do not are not. Morality applies to actions and not to thoughts that precede them.

That distinction allows ethical and moral education to be formulated, written and taught across all curricula from preparatory school onwards. Aristotle reached similar conclusions. Thus, ethics and morality are separated.

The point at which we commit to action is where our ethical thoughts and considerations cease being private. Our behaviour affects others — this demonstration is our morality or its lack. Our intentions and values are transferred from our private domain into society, now open to public scrutiny.

Grasp how vitally important this is. The subconscious mind delivers a perception report concerning our actions and an emotional report. Hence, we each are a living, breathing, walking advertisement of our ethics and morality, received by others visibly and emotionally.

Now consider the often repeated saying that ‘service to others comes before service to self.’ Does it? Your freely chosen, value-based ethics are indeed a service to yourself. However, since ethical thoughts eventually manifest as moral actions, what first serves you is later your service to others, morally (or immorally). You’ve shown what is possible and upheld their choice to emulate your achievements. We may choose to assist others, but that is not our moral duty. 

Here is the beauty of it all. ‘Life values’ fuel our ethics. They can be uploaded to the subconscious mind and put on autopilot. Do that, and you’ve put your morality on autopilot. Your moral service to others is now automated. 

Social Morality

This suggests that morality be a part of Nature’s codes of conduct, namely a science or code of morality, describing how men and women should act and behave based on ethical principles of self and the lives of all others. Its premises are straightforward.

• Precedence: Morality results from our ethical or unethical choices and intentions. Ethics harms no one but ourselves. Immorality harms others.
• Virtues: Virtues, attitudes, values, and developed character traits that foster and master our material and spiritual potential are the source of our (enacted) morality.
• Respect: Respect for others is the manifestation of an enacted morality entirely conducive to ‘individual rights,’ without which the right to life of all others and all respect for life is denied.
• Justness: Justness is the sum of just actions, a testament to our morality. Justness unto ourselves must manifest as justness unto others, or else we lie.

Necessarily, such a code of morality would be independent of human opinion, rule and authoritarian interpretation. Howls of protest would undoubtedly follow.“How on earth will immoral behaviour be arrested if we govern ourselves?”

The answer lies in the Natural Law of Just Consequence, revealed by the conscious process. It informs that every instigator of an immoral action publicly confesses guilt through their action(s). The question is answered thereby. Once guilt is established, the particular trespass or violation of another’s life is inescapable. One’s immoral or unjust actions self-confess one’s guilt and liability for remediation.

Altogether, it is as though nature’s source creator said, ‘I’ve perfected societal governing within your very self, precisely so that you may translate my Intrinsic Natural Laws into your societies.’

Our right to live is exclusively independent and immutable. Our life is ours. Our singularity, beautiful uniqueness, and the natural order of our life ordain boundaries separating us from others. Our rights, words, deeds, works, and property are separated from another’s and from other things. Nothing could be simpler or more in tune with nature herself.

• Ethics are our personal benchmark.
• Justness and morality are our social benchmarks, the sum of just actions and the testament to our morality.
• Free will is the author of all.

Nature’s codes of conduct are complete. We have an answer to the question — ‘how can uniform moral uprightness be achieved if each chooses their own?’ As a collective, we cannot, as history has long proven, but as individuals, we each can. Everything in our nature and its governing laws urge that we should.

Now we have a new definition of Individual morality.

Morality is the conscious will to live according to one’s nature, never depriving others the same opportunity.

Justness is fundamental to nature’s codes of conduct

Just as Nature’s codes of conduct work personally, they now work for society. Unless we justly and morally deliver to others, we confess a violation of life we professedly uphold. 

By holding our own life in contempt, as valueless, so we acknowledge the need for remediation.

State rule will not vanish while human sciences ignore the natural laws of our being as though they are non-existent. When millions vote for benefits, comforts, and security to be legally extracted from others, as though such theft ensures a just and moral society, they have voted to be authoritatively ruled and suffer accordingly. They agree to be herded, branded, and corralled as social animals. They should not bemoan any injustice or immorality and crime that results because the immorality of authoritative rule is precisely what they voted for.

In sum, justness is firmly encrypted in our nature and manifests in our ethics and morality according to our choices. Step outside those boundaries, and there is no justness. ‘Justness’ is enacting one’s individual morality, while unjustness is the product of immoral actions.

Question. Could ‘moral justness’ be preemptively taught in the classrooms of seven-year-olds? 

Yes, of course, whereby the need for courts of natural justice would greatly diminish.