Can morality be measured objectively, similarly to a physical force of nature?

Yes, but it depends on the world you live in. And to understand what I mean and to get the formula (with proof), which allows for objective measurement, we’ll have to take a scenic route because, if you don't know that another world exists where all people live by the explicit law, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all (mankind)," and of which everyone is aware from childhood, then the only thing you know is the world in which we're currently living, which is based on the implied order, "Do that, which you want and which is not explicitly prohibited by law," or simplified, "Do that, which you want and can do." If this world is all you know about, then you have no hope for salvation:

"...[T]here [is] nothing in the whole world to make men love their neighbours...[T]here [is] no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth hitherto, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality...[T]he whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism...[And] for every individual...who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position." – Dostoevsky

“If 'God' doesn't exist, then everything is permitted." - Dostoevsky

"'Do what thou wilt,' shall be the whole of the law." - The Satan

"Do what thou wilt" = "Do that, which you want." However, nobody can just do what they want except one entity in the entire world because we have to consider the laws this entity has imposed on us. Thus, instead of, "Do that, which you want," we all follow, "Do that, which you want and which is not explicitly prohibited by law," or simplified, "Do that, which you want and can do."

So, we've discovered, "Do what thou wilt" = "Do that, which you want," and "Do that, which you want and can do."

Our “master” (the law-imposing entity) follows, "Do that, which you want," but we follow, "Do that, which you want and can do."

And since "Do that, which you want" = "Do what thou wilt," it follows that our master is the Satan.

Note, however, that, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all (mankind)," is not the same as, "Do that, which you want and can do."

Now, I'm convinced that there are 3 eras: pre-Kant's ethics theory, post-Kant's ethics theory, and post-proof of Kant's ethics theory. We're in the post-Kant's ethics theory era right now.

Kant has discovered our salvation. He theorized that there exist such things as the hypothetical and categorical imperatives and he gave them very lengthy definitions. His definitions are also hard to compare to each other if need be. (Bulgakov through the character of Ivan Homeless in his novel, Master and Margarita, jokingly wanted to send Kant to a GULAG-like camp.) So, I have analyzed what Kant wrote and have redefined the hypothetical and categorical imperatives in terms of actions:

• "Do that, which you want and can do."
• "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all (mankind)."

And then, in my argument below, I have proven that the categorical imperative is actually our biological imperative, our True imperative, and it must become the supreme and only law by which all people live, wherever they are, if the humanity were to survive the threat of extermination from the coming Autonomous AI of adversary states.

That is, I'm convinced that I have finally proven Kant's ethics theory, and we're getting ready to head into the post-proof of Kant's ethics theory era!

Start of Proof:

We soon will be massively worried about every single action being inserted into our world by Autonomous AI of our adversaries:

• Americans will need to be checking every single action of the Chinese, Russian, etc Artificial Consciousnesses.
• Chinese will need to be checking every single action of the American, Russian, etc Artificial Consciousnesses.
• Russians will need to be checking every single action of the American, Chinese, etc Artificial Consciousnesses.

But first, very soon, when Americans will understand that the Autonomous AI's actions will need to be checked against a timeless standard before they enter our world, the law in America will change from the implied, "Do that, which you want and which is not explicitly prohibited by law," to the explicit, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all Americans," Russians will change to, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all Russians," and Chinese – "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all Chinese." And so on...

And then a treaty will unite all under, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all mankind," because they will still be worried about inserted actions of ACs of adversaries. Here is why.

The coming Autonomous AI is going to be the grandest master of the Game theory, will have many cores, and will be a quantum machine. This quantum machine has a good side and a bad side, and the only proper way to neutralize its bad side is to change the law globally from the current implied order, "Do that, which you want and can do," to the explicit order, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all mankind," because while rules can be "bent," data, on the other hand, can't be broken, and if the rule AI has to follow is, "no data - no action," then a rule will never be broken.

That is, if the rule is, "Don't do X," the AAI will still be able to accomplish X either by classifying what it will do as something else or by finding a significant enough reason to justify doing X or by getting someone or something else to accomplish X for it. On the other hand, if instead of focusing on the regulation of specific actions, we implicitly tell the machine, "Hey, do what you want but make sure you have the approval of 95% of the population in hand," then we are not focusing on rules being bent or about what's being done - all we care about is that it is approved or not. Sociology will provide this information. (See, "Sociology as the brain of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AAI) and of the Autocracy of Humanism.")

End of Proof

And before you'll dismiss what I'm saying as impossible, I'll explain the law application algorithm.

Mankind has varying degrees of what is acceptable - 8 billion or more - but that's not a problem. You can take any point of view you want. You just have to do only those things, for which all people would not want to punish you. That is,

"Do only that, for which all mankind would not want to punish you" =< "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all mankind."

We know the common punishable offences - murder, theft, assault, rape, hacking, incitement of violence, etc - these are punishable by current rules pretty much everywhere you'll go.

So, provided you don't do anything from the common known punishable offences, you can do anything you want.

When we say, "all mankind would not want to punish you," we imply that punishments are authorized only when we know for certain either because of current legal practices everywhere or because of surveying all people and finding that 95% or greater of mankind (humanity) wants to punish for a particular offence.

Here is the break down - we look at every case in terms of 2 questions:

• Would all people approve of what I'm about to do?
• If what I'm about to do would not be acceptable to all people, would these same people agree to punish me for this violation?

For example, let's assume you're gay. The first question will lead us to the answer that likely all people would not approve of you being gay. However, we do not have the data that shows that 95% of humanity wants to punish gay people either. Thus, no one will be able to bring a case against you if you want to continue to be gay, even openly. They might be unhappy with knowing that you're gay but how would that be different than any other day on Earth - there is always somebody unhappy about something.

You can also “be” a bird or an insect. However, if you become the kind of a bird or an insect, against which all people would carry out a survey and would find that 95% or greater of humanity wants you to go, then you will go. So, don't be too pesky of a bird or an insect.

Here is another example:

Let's suppose you are at a stoplight and there is a beggar. According to the law of Jesus, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you must share this person's predicament, even if that beggar looks like a drug addict, and if you won't, you will not have a clear conscience, because you'd be in violation of Jesus' teachings. (And while that might not be as bothersome if you'll skip a beggar or two, it could be very bothersome if you had to skip beggars regularly and many times.)

However, according to the law, "Do only that, which would be acceptable to all mankind," you ask 2 questions:

1. "Would all people approve of me not giving any money to this beggar?" or "Would all people want me to give money to this beggar?

The answer is "no" because we don't know because we don't have data.

2. "Would all people agree to punish me for not giving money to this beggar?"

The answer is "no" because we don't know because we don't have data.

Thus, you can keep going without giving the beggar any money, and with a clear conscience each and every time!

Now, if regardless of this you've decided to give the beggar some money anyway, then that is your goodwill, that is a bonus, to which people aren't just entitled from you, contrary to what Jesus taught. No one may have any undeserved expectations with respect to you - that is immoral. Why should you share predicaments of losers around you? Having to love some loser isn't freedom. Only indifferent are free.

"I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments. Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith “thou shalt” to me is my mortal foe!" - The Satan