.png)
9 examples of anankelogically objective morality
- Steph Turner
- Nov 4, 2023
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 25, 2024
Conflicts from the latest Hamas-Israel war to political conflicts at home convince many to resign to the popular notion that morality is merely subjective. Anankelogy provides tools to appreciate morality’s objective side. If every natural need exists as an objective fact, then our responses to them can be regarded arbitrarily moral but not the needs themselves. Anything in the way of resolving any natural need necessary for objective functioning presents as objectively immoral—and therefore scientifically measurable. Let’s start there.
Which do you assume is more likely?
Morality is subjective and therefore not accountable to any empirical science.
OR
Morality includes an objective dimension accountable to empirical science.
Anankelogy asserts that any natural need exists as a natural fact. Hence, anankelogy suggests there is an objective dimension to morality—to choosing actions that either resolve needs for improved functioning or detracts from resolving needs that painfully lowers functioning.
Anankelogy distinguishes between inflexible natural needs and flexible responses to those needs. Since you do not nor can you choose to experience a naturally occurring need, any obstruction of such a need is objectively immoral. And empirically measurable.
How to respond to those needs can have a more arbitrary moral dimension. The natural existence of any natural need can never be reduced to any arbitrary moral platitude or belief. That itself is immoral, with objectively measurable unfavorable consequences.
What we sometimes declare and do in the name of morality—often in a rush to ease some unsettling frustration—is too often immoral itself. Anankelogy offers a list of empirically grounded principles to guide our actions through even the most morally ambiguous situations.
When applying the first and second principles of object needs and objective priorities, consider these nine examples as merely a helpful starting point.
1. Empathic or nonempathetic?
If you do not empathize with the inflexible needs on all sides to a conflict (i.e., judicial conflict, political conflict, etc.),
then you are wrong.
If you empathize with the inflexible needs on all sides to a conflict (i.e., judicial conflict, political conflict, etc.) toward resolving such needs,
then you are right.
COMMENTARY
2. Relieving pain or removing cause for pain?
If you prioritize relieving the pain of unresolved needs over resolving the needs causing that pain,
then you are wrong.
If you prioritize resolving the needs causing pain over relieving the pain of such unresolved needs,
then you are right.
COMMENTARY
3. Indulgent side-taking or mutual respect?
If you take sides in a violent battle to avoid the discomfort of relating to each side’s affected needs,
then you're ultimately wrong.
If you face the discomfort of relating to each side’s affected needs to dissolve resorting to violence,
then you're ultimately right.
COMMENTARY
4. Selfishness or generosity?
If you prioritize your own selfish interests over the inflexible priorities of another,
then you are wrong.
If you prioritize the inflexible priorities of another over your own selfish interests,
then you are right.
COMMENTARY
5. Generalize or specifics?
If you do not empathize with others but instead rely on political or other generalizations to ease your pain,
then you are wrong.
If you empathize with others to address specifics behind political or other generalizations to resolve those needs,
then you are right.
COMMENTARY
6. Obedience or responsiveness?
If you prioritize any arbitrary law or social norm over the inflexible needs they ostensibly exist to serve,
then you expose an improper priority.
If you prioritize addressing inflexible needs over any arbitrary law or social norm applied to avoid addressing such needs,
then you expose a
proper priority.
COMMENTARY
7. Feel-reactive or need-responsive?
If you act upon your emotions to try to quickly relieve its intensity, without regard for how your actions impact others,
then you are wrong.
If you reflect upon your emotions to try to explore every option, with regard for how your actions could impact others,
then you are right.
COMMENTARY
8. Hate or love?
If you act upon a widely accepted generalization that negatively impacts anyone’s inflexible needs, then you expose your unrighteous avoidance of reality.
You then are wrong.
If you act upon the widely universal generalization of love that honors each other’s inflexible needs, then you show your righteous relating to reality.
You then are right.
COMMENTARY
9. Right or wrong?
If convinced you are right,
then you are wrong.
If suspecting you could be wrong,
then you are right.
COMMENTARY
More about this anankelogically objective morality
If objective, it can be empirically measured in some way. Anankelogy introduces relational knowing for you to create your own testable hypotheses.
Pain relief tends to be arbitrary. It’s not buttoned down enough to be reliably measurable. Besides, easing discomfort too easily slides into the problems your life could do without.
Anankelogy’s objective morality points to empirically reliable ways
to fully resolve needs,
to remove cause for pain, and
boost your functionality level.
This is why a wellness campaign can point to a reduced level of addiction as a reliable measure.
The less pain induced from blind social power, while the addict acts in good faith to overcome addictive behaviors, the more the relatively powerless addict can resolve more needs to remove cause for pain, and improve their ability to get more done. This “relational knowing” correlation can be tested, for a vitally good cause.
The more we dismiss all morality as arbitrary, the more we tend to slide into legalistic traps. And the more vulnerable as sitting ducks to the socially powerful. Shall this objective morality take a back seat to legalistic powerholders who draft and interpret and enforce such limiting policies.
Need-response asserts
the higher authority of resolving needs in love
over
the lesser authority of adversarial legalism.
Legal systems of the judiciary and politics pit us against each other often for the benefit of these institutions and their elite-bred leaders. Need-response challenges their legitimacy.
Need-response asserts
the objective morality of mutually resolving needs
over
our current troubling malaise of
indulgent outrage,
antagonistic alienation, and
bloodthirsty cries for war.
Need-response asserts
love
over
hate,
and shall not compromise this objective morality for no blind power.
Love compels us to support each other to more fully resolve each other’s inflexible needs. The objective morality of anankelogy affords us little else. So let’s stop the hate and spread some love. Before hate, hostilities and wars consume us all!
Your responsiveness to objective morality
Your turn.
Need-response provides you an opportunity to improve your responsiveness to needs by expanding your capacity to endure the natural discomforts of resolving needs. Instead of habitually avoiding natural pain in the name of "good" that results in much "bad", you can take our free online course to start certifying your competencies as a need-responder.
You can actively address moral needs by launching your own wellness campaign. You can take our free online brief course to check if a wellness campaign is right for you.
Consider one or more of these options to respond to this need-responsive content.
Check our Engaging Forum to FOLLOW discussions on this post and others. JOIN us as a site member to interact with others and to create your own forum comments.
Explore similar content by clicking on the tags below. Find similar content under this applied anankelogy category.
Share this content with others on social media. Share the link to share the love.
Check out recent posts of interest to you.
Add a rating to let others know how much of a good read this was for you.
Write a comment to give others an independent perspective on this content.
Recommend this on Facebook. Introduce anankelogy to your social media contacts.
Lastly, support us in building this new love-nurturing alternative to our hate-enabling institutions. You can help us spread some love.
Comments