When I first started learning to think rationally, accepting my own capacity for error, and recognizing the ways in which those who "taught" me were inflicting conclusions upon me, I went back to question all of the conclusions I carried to determine if my understanding of them were accurate. This can be an important endeavor for us all so that we can survive with greater efficiency by way of having a more accurate understanding of the world we live in. For if we think we have the answer, we stop looking for answers that might be (more) accurate.
For millenia, religions and governments have used the word "moral(ity)" to describe their whims in attempt to have their desires viewed as factual, methodical, and above scrutiny. As a result, many people misunderstand or undervalue morality, seeing it as merely an opinion. While I appreciate the ability to reject dogma, it's important that we not throw out the baby with the bath water. Morality is still a very powerful tool. We just need to keep in mind that only a description of morality that is objective would fit the bill of what many people think morality is supposed to do. Namely, to prescribe what people ought to do.
Trying to prescribe what people ought to do, in the absence of clarity, can be a challenging endeavor. It is essentially an unchosen obligation, 99.9% of which are unethical in proposition. Therefore, we would have to identify a prescription for behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen. How, in a vacuum, are we able to determine what people would choose in every situation at all times? They would have to be behaviors that are performative contradictions. That is, behaviors that the very act of engaging in them would be the communication that such behaviors are wrong.
Thankfully, the list of these behaviors is very short: Theft, assault, rape, and murder. When somebody steals, they are using their labor to deprive another of the effects of their labor. Assault and rape are the use of one's body to deprive another the use of their body. Finally, murder is using one's life to deprive another of their life. Each of these behaviors are performative contradictions by virtue of the very definition of what these behaviors entail. Namely that in each behavior, the recipient has not consented to their participation in that behavior. Consent therefore is the measure by which a behavior can be determined to be (im)moral.
There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is implied consent. While consent cannot be implied, there are situations were a person cannot consent. Such as a person who is unconscious in the middle of a road designated for automobile travel. It is reasonable to expect that the person would consent to be withdrawn from harm's way if they were able to consent. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise ownership over that person's body by moving them without having first secured their consent.
The other important caveat is coercion. If a person was to threaten you with harm if you did not engage in a particular behavior, they are taking from you the voluntary choice that would make your behavior eligible for moral consideration. If for example an attacker were to point a gun at you and tell you to empty a cash register, you would not be guilty of theft. Here, the debt created by the theft would accrue to the person using the gun to force somebody else to do something. Keep in mind that this is only true when the threat is credible. If somebody were to make an outlandish claim--a threat that they could not reasonably carry out--the threat would not override the free will of the intended "victim."
Along my journey of re-evaluating the conclusions I held, I had at one point been told that political voting was immoral. The explanation given was philosophically sound, so I accepted this unpopular conclusion. At a later time, I was exposed to what I felt was a very convincing argument as to why political voting is in fact not immoral. The argument being that the person elected is free to decline and therefore any initiation of the use of force was originating from the elected official and not the people telling the person such immorality was okay by way of condoning it with their vote. Upon further consideration, I've come to realize that this argument is insufficient.
The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation.
My apologies to those whom I may have mislead by previously claiming that voting is not immoral. As I stated in the beginning, it is very valuable to question your conclusions and the conclusions of others. Be vigilant in protecting your mind from bad ideas and be willing to accept when you were wrong. Make the necessary correction as I have here. Thank you for reading, my brothers and sisters. Please help your friends, family, and neighbors to understand the ways in which the State is violence and encourage them to do the right thing. Set an example, encourage them to follow your example, and do not reward them with the pleasure of your company if they would use that violence to harm you or others.