Morality, whether absolute or relative, is something we experience as an unconditiional demand on us.
No Sir. It’s OK.
Anything was/is open for discussion.
All I said that I didn’t want to include religion or God concept in it, but at some point I was going to.
That is, after we establish “What is Morality”.
I have an idea what you are saying in Red bold part,…(P.N./S.I./etc.) !!
Not going to explain what P.N. and S.I. means at this time.
But let’s just say I do not have any idea what you mean.
So can you explain what you meant by** “Non-Aggression in all it’s form as universal value”?**
Please explain. 
Hmmm…
Not sure what it means.
I think you are saying Morality is expected and required by all of us without any excuse.
Am I right?
If not then please correct me.
What is aggression? Aggression is **initiation **of force or fraud. Force and fraud violate a person’s right to exercise his free will. All human acts require free will as a pre-requisite. Hence, any human action that violates free will undermines its own justification. In that sense, non-aggression is a self evident moral value that cannot be contradicted.
Aggression includes non-defensive cases of killing, injuring, kidnapping, enslaving, destroying property, fraudulently depriving someone of property. All these acts of aggression are self-evidently immoral. That is why they are condemned in almost every culture/tradition/religion/ideology. Whenever a tradition permits aggression (e.g. honor killings, killing for apostasy/blasphemy/heresy) then that tradition is corrupting itself because it is undermining the practice of free will which is the pre-requisite for the practice of that very tradition itself.
Yes. I mean that the moral act is an unconditional demand for us. We don’t do it for any benefit that may derive to us or fear of any harm that may come to us. We do it for itself unconditionally.
Not always. Sorry.
**" Aggression can not always be non defensive and be wrongful". **
Party A acts aggression on Party B.
Party C can act aggressively on Party A in certain way, without being defensive and still be moral.
Country A decided to hurt it’s population or people of other country (Party B).
Country C, D, E, etc. decided to intervene and acted aggressively without being defensive themselves, on Country A.
**I am not justifying any wrongful, unjustifiable act of aggression.
All I am saying that aggression to eliminate another aggression is justified and moral even if it is not an act of defense for reactionary aggressor.**
Pre-emptive strike is also justified but this is abused in last few decades.
You did not have to add these selective ideas.
While they all are immoral, there was no need to select them out. Why you selectively mentioned them I can guess.
The context of your sentence smells you are biased because you left out numerous other immoral and aggressive acts performed in many parts of the world and failed to talk in broader, all inclusive aspect of question of Morality.
Not good. Stop! being biased and hence immoral.
I think I need to refine the definition of aggression here.
Aggression is the **initiation **of force or fraud as well as a **plausible threat ** of force or fraud. (If somebody is threating to kill you, you can act to defend yourself against the threat)
Defending against force or fraud is not aggression.
Defending against a **plausible threat ** of force and fraud is not aggression (i.e. pre-emptive action against a plausible threat)
Responding to acts of aggression is not aggression even if it is done by a third party, presumably with the consent of the original victim. (That’s how policing works).
With these clarifications, I still hold that aggression is universally immoral and non-aggression is a universal moral value that is a pre-requisite for all other moral values.
I selected examples with which I was most familiar. It was not my intention to single out any culture or tradition. I am sure many cultures/traditions/religions/ideologies allow for acts of aggression and thereby corrupt themselves to that degree. Some more than others. I categorically state that all acts of aggression allowed by any culture/tradition/religion/ideology are immoral and corrupt that culture/tradition/religion/ideology to the degree to which these acts are allowed.
@diwana perhaps it is time for you to introduce some of your own views on the topic
Yes Sir. You do need to.
OK.
But only and only if the plausible/Possible/Imminent danger is verifiable.
And all means are available to confirm.
If not, then be ready to be called Immoral, aggressor, and face the shameful consequences.
This “imminent threat excuse” can be and has been abused, with loss of millions human beings by the aggressors.
No consent should be required by the victim. Period.
Disagree.
If you disagree with my disagreement, then let me explain my position.
What you are saying is that…old, demented, weak, babies, children, deaf, mute, crippled, paralytics, and those, not having any means to communicate with anyone, who cannot consent or able to ask for help are justified being the victims of aggression.
Come on. Try again. 
Sorry.
Not buying your excuse of being “most familiar” of these examples.
Either you are** brainwashed** to become “familiar” with these examples, or you deliberately spend your time “familiarizing” with these examples so you could use these examples in discussion like these, despite their extremely low contribution of** all aggressions in the world present and past**?
You talked about Less than 1/10th of the aggressive acts around the world and stating that these were the issues you are “most familiar” about?
Hilarious and yet pathetic.
Please get up. And smell coffee.
**More than 99.99% aggressive acts you failed to mention occurred or occurring across the globe. **
And that’s where you are BIASED!
I am already doing it indirectly.
You just need to get your understanding of Morality right.
So far you tried and I appreciate it very much, but your post(s) above make me think you are not the one who can handle this topic.
Sorry.
*------------------------------------------
OK.
But only and only if the plausible/Possible/Imminent danger is verifiable.
And all means are available to confirm.
If not, then be ready to be called Immoral, aggressor, and face the shameful consequences.
This "imminent threat excuse" can be and has been abused, with loss of millions human beings by the aggressors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
You are absolutely right. The imminent threat excuse has been abused. So has the self-defense threat. It does not invalidate the principle.
***------------------------------------
No consent should be required by the victim. Period.**
Disagree.
If you disagree with my disagreement, then let me explain my position.
What you are saying is that................old, demented, weak, babies, children, deaf, mute, crippled, paralytics, and those, not having any means to communicate with anyone, who cannot consent or able to ask for help are justified being the victims of aggression.
Come on. Try again*
I think I have made it pretty clear that no one is justified in being the victim of aggression - ever. Now you are bringing up the issue of whether third parties acting on behalf of victims are practicing non-aggression. If they have the consent of the victim then the answer is obvious. You bring up the case where victims are unable **to give consent. You are right that in this case consent can be presumed. **It can be done so because of the universality of the non-aggression principle.
What about the case where the victim is fully able to give consent and withholds it of his own free will without any pressure? I would let the victim have his way. You may or may not. In either case, we are debating details of implementation of the non-aggression principle. The unconditional universality of the non-aggression principle still stands.
If you insist on peering into my heart and assigning motives to me then go ahead and do so. I don’t think it contributes to the discussion. Whether I give examples that are 0.1% or 99.9% of aggressive acts, it doesn’t affect the central argument - the universality of the principle of non-aggression.
Well, then, thanks for listening so far.
Looking forward to hearing some direct expressions of your views on the subject.
You are absolutely right. The imminent threat excuse has been abused. So has the self-defense threat. It does not invalidate the principle.
Agreed.
I think I have made it pretty clear that no one is justified in being the victim of aggression - ever. Now you are bringing up the issue of whether third parties acting on behalf of victims are practicing non-aggression. If they have the consent of the victim then the answer is obvious. You bring up the case where victims are unable **to give consent. You are right that in this case consent can be presumed. **It can be done so because of the universality of the non-aggression principle.
*What about the case where the victim is fully able to give consent and withholds it of his own free will without any pressure? I would let the victim have his way. *
Even then there should be a proper and reasonable way to act against the aggressor in aggressive way.
Nor it changes the fact that you gave wrong excuse (“being most familiar”) of talking about extremely rare and debatable examples when the discussion was clearly on general basis and you acted as a biased if not brainwashed person.
You ignored huge problems in this world due to the brutalities and aggression against countless people on this planet within the last few decades and during these days.
It’s not possible that by this time you would not be very familiar with so much details account of so many crimes against humanity occurring around the world.
It’s not about peeking in to anyone’s heart.
It is about logic.
Welcome.
Human cannot come to a universal definition of Morality.
A lot of scenarios and conditions can be used but when it comes to the question of what Morality is, the "universal" definition will include very limited scenarios.
In general, anything good in one scenario can be bad in other scenario and vice versa.
Aggression is not universally immoral.
Non-Aggression is not “automatically” Moral.
“Killing” is not universally immoral.
Lying and even hiding the truth is not universally immoral.
Not all criminal act in a given society’s standard are immoral.
Not all immoral acts in a given society’s standard, should be considered criminal acts.
Ok, then @diwana , what makes an act moral or immoral?