Is it a social best practice to empower only people deemed to have good moral values to practice philosophy?

More specifically, does philosophy in itself premise good
moral values through reflective evaluation of the reasoning
which drives moral values?

For example, consider an assault and battery robber
practicing philosophy rationalizing his/her motives:
<begin example>
Why I am assaulting someone?

Because I want money.

Is it practical and in my best interest to assault someone
to get money?

If I assault someone to get money then two conclusions
might be drawn.

First, I think that assaulting someone is the easiest way
to get money.

Second, I think that money is more valuable than human
health.

Can the first conclusion be disproven?

Yes, assaulting someone might lead to jail time which
is not easy. If I earned my money through a job I wouldn’t
risk jail time. Therefore, work is the easiest money.

Continued in details below…
Can the second conclusion be
rationalized in terms of convenience?

If a significant number of people
harmed peoples’ health then those
harmed would require hospital care
which would cost money for society
as a whole. Therefore, everyone
would become less wealthy,
and the amount of money they
would have would be lesser
to a degree that the robber
couldn’t consider the money
carried to be worth more than
human health.
<end example>
"1) Assumption: To be moral is to favor all people with virtuous intent.

If 1=true then to perform the acts of assault and battery is to be without virtue thus there is no support for a person who will harm another in order to gain trade value. If 1=false then there is no boundary of right vs. wrong and any action is permissible to acquire a higher status than status quo."

I agree, but expand with the conditions
that the virtue which is applied to social
interaction be a socially accepted
virtue and based on the statement
made I think it would have to be
true that higher status would have
to be mutually exclusive to virtue.
‘For the "great minds" of today do not themselves know the truth. Oh sure, they are educated, but enlightened? — not at all.’

I disagree. To those who I merit
as "Great Minds", I do consider them
to be enlightened. However, I believe
that a significant number of these
"Great Minds" do not pass on their
enlightenment, but rather pass on
the superficial profession. In other
words, many of the "Great Minds"
of today pass on the "how", but
not the "why". Inevitably, such a
cycle will lead to ignorant imitation,
and therefore degradation of quality.
Regarding the strict integrity of
philosophy and enlightenment,
no practicer of those two should
perform a "how" without knowing
the "why".
"Once morality precepts fell into the hands of those who least capable of wielding it, its fallacies and lies became an ‘ affecting ‘ truth."

A society is formed from all those
individuals of the society. To place
morality into the hands of all those
is to create ‘affect’ by all those.
I argue that to put conditions on
who within a single society is
least capable, and therefore
undeserving of morality, is to segregate
the society such that it is no longer
one society, but separate societies
with unequal endowments. Therefore,
unity of society depends on mutual
morality endowments. And if those
who are least capable(harmful) do
cause strife in the society then shouldn’t
all those other members of society
have the endowment of morality to
properly defend themselves from
such incapacities?
"There is little purpose for the mind but the purpose for which it was created; that is, as co-worker and servant with and of Soul Itself. It shall never be the master of same, for the mind cannot conceive of an Existence that so surpasses its capacity to know it in the first place."

I agree, but I also choose to distinguish
that the soul in my opinion is embedded
within the mind such that the two are
inseparable. The mind can be
considered as the transport module
between the soul and perceptions.
Therefore, the mind is what interacts
with society and the soul is what
interacts with the self. Considering
free will, the soul must be accountable
to itself rather than submit to the
external influences which are
perceived. I choose to believe that
the soul will be judged on the way
I think things are rather than the
way things truly are, because in
order for free will to be free there must
be both true and false realities.
Otherwise, all will must be morally
true.
"…such as this and those who wish to abide it will do little more than loop, and little if any chance is there for anyone who lend to it any likely rising in consciousness or merit."

True, there is redundancy within the
loop, but looping is necessary for
implementing successive
approximations towards a more
efficient implementation, and many
people still remain who have never
observed the loop.
‘What I say here is not a personal attack upon you or anyone but rather a commentary on this " school " of thought, which is not yours but rather a precedent set by others who lived well before you and who, whether aware or not, are bent on constraining new thinkers to a delusive, lateral movement through life and living.’

I do not claim, or desire, or merit deserve, of association with any
"school" of thought. Such an association
would be contrary to the monotany
of thought which I denunciate.
Regarding delusion, is it delusion
which states that the soul is the master
of the mind and therefore can’t possibly
be unaware. Therefore, it is impossible
to constrain the soul.
"Morality is scarcely more than some shadow, a residual wrought from muddled minds, which undertake to claim superiority over others."

If abused then yes I agree.
"No. Your example is too simple, and
flawed."

Yes, my example is simple as
philosophy is designed to simplify
rationality through explanation.
Yes, my example is incomplete,
but it is not flawed. To post my
question is to make it be without
flaw. To post my question is to
invite your criticism. If you consider
your criticism a flaw then perhaps
it is flawed. I consider your criticism
to be applied to the progress of
completing the forum of dialogue
regarding the question at hand.
"One cannot calculate a moral position using logic alone, without first identifying and recognizing one’s own guiding priorities (which will always conflict with someone else’s)."

True, better to have moral positions
conflict than to have conflict by violence.

Bear in mind that there exists much truth left out of the teachings and entreats of the hallowed halls of the Institute as regards moral precepts and living. For the "great minds" of today do not themselves know the truth. Oh sure, they are educated, but enlightened? — not at all.

Morality in itself suggests power. And there exists nothing in morality but the myriad turns on power — and fear.

For much in those days among the masses — during those times of the avatars, saviors, great sages, oracles, and holymen and thinkers we now know well about — was underguided by fear and anger and thereby sheer violence.

No different is this today…

Thus was a tool put-up that afforded convention a pacifier, which salve was imported well by these ancient philosophers and oracles and masters of the mystery schools and orders, but conversely was outrageously abused by the varied power mongers and ruling classes of that time: their littany and doctrine is what survived in large part and are those that we behold in the legislatures, universities, and temples of the world — in the Western Hemisphere in particular, in that they dare to live by what should only have been perused, maybe fancied, but never should have been put to practice. For it was marred from its very inception. Once morality precepts fell into the hands of those who least capable of wielding it, its fallacies and lies became an ‘ affecting ‘ truth.

No philosophers of olde ever used Morality except as a means to translate Divine Law, a tool of the theoretical, a discourse, which conversely Divine Law in earlier millenia and up to now as well was and is a difficult thing to understand much less proficiently master.

But the enlightened ones knew this but preferred this over self-destruction and tyranny as it so starkly existed.

So these great philosophers, who were in truth high spiritual masters, chose to provide measures of mitigation against a truly spiritually immature collective that was otherwise bent on corrupting and undermining the very lives of their fellow neighbors and States.

Like not few spiritual doctrines and scriptures, the high law, which needs no substitute ever, never has been properly understood or applied. And morality has proved to be no more than — again — a controlling device got up by the Church and Royalties, which same pattern and behavior persists to now.

Morality is at best an exponent of thought, ripe for the tool, which is in itself a tool: the Mind.

There is little purpose for the mind but the purpose for which it was created; that is, as co-worker and servant with and of Soul Itself. It shall never be the master of same, for the mind cannot conceive of an Existence that so surpasses its capacity to know it in the first place.

We only delude ourselves in placing the Mind at so great an echelon. It is a powerful servant but an extremely poor master. But when balance and in unison with Soul, the mind can create a universe or wipe one out… This is Truth, this is Power truly.

Socrates and Plato tried unceasingly to impart this, and they used a device that man could at least approximate. And they knew well the dangers in this…yet also knew the dangers of allowing the societies all around them a continuation spawned from wrong law and the consequences and their untold permutations. They were high spiritual masters though few knew this and few again know this today.

Your line of thought may well wish to continue using these very machinations and on the very same curve as outlined above, but such as this and those who wish to abide it will do little more than loop, and little if any chance is there for anyone who lend to it any likely rising in consciousness or merit.

What I say here is not a personal attack upon you or anyone but rather a commentary on this " school " of thought, which is not yours but rather a precedent set by others who lived well before you and who, whether aware or not, are bent on constraining new thinkers to a delusive, lateral movement through life and living.

This line may affect to be truth but truly is only what it is — reason, logic. But truth and Divine Law have nothing to do with logic except insofar as these two created reason and logic.

Logic is at best one remove of Truth. Short of possessing Truth and High Law, one might suppose this will have to do.

Morality is scarcely more than some shadow, a residual wrought from muddled minds, which undertake to claim superiority over others.

Get this, as regards morality:

It is but a social construction of rules and devices to govern the behavior of the masses to create in them, as the sheep they invariably are, a common mode of action that underguides fears in Man.

That we can spin turns on logic regarding Morality imports nothing to the hearts of men. The best that we can say of it is, it lends us something to prattle with, a toy. Hence, we loop and loop and loop. And like a ride upon a carousel, we have momentum but we no less see the same sights time and again except with frequent and varying themes. And such is forte of Morality as well…

Divine Law allow us to disembark from the carousel ! IT cares little about reforming life in a penitentiary but rather, obtaining our release and therewith, our freedom.

Now, Morality was and is still sustained by those who knew and do know the inherent property in the masses to be weak and feeble-minded, ay, those, the masses that are riddled with fear: our marked differences today is that of greed and vanity amid the masses.

The Clerics and power-brokers of Church and State, respectively, and in the institutes of today are no less of that same ilk as those of those many and earlier millennia, as is the mass consciousness considerably similar.