Is There a Universal Understanding of Morality

#TribeVibes
#SteemMonster
#Utopian
#Comedy
#IndyMedia
#Promo-Steem
#Teamsteem
#EsotericNoetic
#Wisdom
#SocialCommentary
#Philosophy
#Moralphilosophy
#Memes

The problem I encounter more often than not in political and moral discussions is people want to conflate usefulness with morality. It's useful to point a gun at someone and extort money from them to fund cancer research but that does not make it moral.

The non-aggression principle
(or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate.
“Aggression”, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual’s property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism

To be clear, rights can not impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right. Therefore healthcare, public education, child support are not rights. You do not have a right to someone's charity or sacrifice. Believing so opens up the door to chaos and being able to make claims upon each other at will based on one's sense of entitlement.

If a law or a right takes something from you i.e your life, your property, your liberty, then it is a positive right and
can not be a natural right. Rights are always defined in the negative.