Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

I propose that if morality is nothing more than a code of conduct for interaction amoung humans, it's goal can be anything. That probably sounds weird, but you are definitely missing something: namely, how you decide which items should be figured into this code.You do that by deciding which things are good for humans. And guess what? Your ideas are not the same as mine are not the same as our neighbors'. You may decide that some amount of freedom is desirable across the whole range of human experience. You still have to figure out 'how much freedom', and 'which freedoms'.If you look at our laws, you see two freedoms: freedom to pursue happiness, and liberty. One is bodily liberty, which is a RIGHT unless in war time, and while the pursuit of happiness is a right, it is not an absolute right. We do not have the right to pursue any old kind of happiness. It it meant to be 'morally grounded' happiness' This brings us back to deciding what is moral, and you can't, again, use 'freedom' as the qualifier. Still a big cicle.

Stile, just for history's sake, do you see how this thread is not a new topic, but the same as 'Why Is It Right To Do Good To Others'?In both topics you state one 'goal' of morality, but the fact that you have two topics serves well to show that you have two goals, IOW, morality is not simply 'doing good' nor simply 'allowing freedom'. Those may boil down to the same thing in the end, {and I think molbiogirl touched on the sympathy/empathy part already} but it is very obvious to me that you can not see the morality forest for the moral trees. Everytime you shift the discussion, from bestiality, to homsexuality, to morality in general, to absolutes, etc., you have the same things to say, but you act as if the whole moral world should flip when we change subjects.I don't mean to be rude at all, but I noticed how you moved this topic, and I think it is just the same old same old. Not that I mind discussing it.