we do appeal to a higher morality. but that higher morality is based on principles which are fundamentally utilitarian. cruel totalitarianism + lack of freedom = less happiness -> freedom and democracy = good -> Chinese system = bad

Lets make some stupid hypothetical that has no utility in the real world because it's vague and unspecific do to the lack of real world examples I can give.

Edit: Anything that requires too much assumption is a **** moral hypothetical in the first place. It's exactly what Frown was describing when saying the ideology is easily manipulatable for people that are short sighted. Lets assume people are just as happy even if I take their freedoms. There for it's okay to take their freedoms. Let's assume somebody will suffer less if I kill them. There for it's okay to kill them.

one axiomatic belief is not the same as an entire ethical system.
and yes, the freedom = good idea is based on the idea that it generally leads to more happiness (or rather less unhappiness, which is why I favour that approach). Of course there are exceptions and you can't judge for sure most of the time, which is exactly why such a general idea is necessary. You're not doing a calculation at any point because that idea is preposterous: instead you create an ethical system with values like you describe, but as long as these are ultimately based on the idea that humankind is happier/suffers less that way, it's essentially utilitarian

I don't have to play with unrealistic hypotheticals regardless. It's ****ing stupid because it's vague with a complete lack of context mostly because it's ultimately unrealistic and not a real choice anybody would have to make. Even if I do you still don't like my answers.

I should add one qualifier: the concept of justice may be the only exception where people believe in it because of an instinctive conviction, but I'm not sure it even applies there

if I believed reducing freedom would lead to happiness on a really fundamental level then yes. not necessarily always though

Oh please, go off on your unrealistic hypotheticals that rely on dumb ass assumptions thinking that you're being intellectual when half the time you're just espousing half baked theories with the amount of brain power behind it as saying "Well god created it and that's just what it is."

There's literally no point in questioning the ideology with a hypothetical that has no real world example you could ever give. You're literally just saying, "Well what if the floor was lava!" Well, yeah, of course I'd try to avoid the floor if it was lava but it's not lava so who gives a ****?

What about Hawaiians, you privileged ****?

"Government is a necessary evil." -Thomas Paine.

Wow so thoughtful. Much deep. How can anybody muster the brain power to answer such a profound question?

You're right, you're right.