Does morality even matter after this meta-ethical realization?

Philosophy Forums
1

If morality is subjective, then moral radicalism is possible, where a person can create a moral framework in which many cruel and heinous actions are considered good. For example, killing, torture, rape, and many other cruel actions can be considered good by another person, and you can’t say it is invalid. Because morality is subjective and because it is his moral framework, he will prioritize his moral framework rather than others’ moral frameworks, leading to moral radicalism if morality is subjective.

But even if objective morality exists, the same scenario can happen. People have a misconception that in objective morality, the things we consider bad, for example, killing, torture, rape, and many other heinous actions will be bad. But this doesn’t have to be the case, because objective morality means morality that is mind-independent; it exists as a mind-independent thing. So, if that’s the case, then it is possible to have a scenario where, in objective morality, slavery, killing, torture, and many other cruel things are good, and the things we consider good like helping each other, being kind, and many other virtuous actions are bad. This scenario is possible even under objective morality. In the end, it is a mind-independent morality, so there are no guarantees that it will align with our general moral values.

So, both can lead to moral radicalism where cruel and heinous things are considered good. If that’s the case, then does morality even matter? Should we even care about being good or bad when they can be used for radical purposes? And if morality doesn’t matter, then what should we do? Should we live without action-guarding values, where any action is permitted, or should we have action-guarding values? If yes, what should those action-guarding values be?

2

Moral truth only exists objectively if there are perfect minds (impossible to have only one communicator) who always treat every person as a person, and who don’t stop at the bare minimum of fairness, but go above and beyond fairness to make more of the other(s) than self—as far as the other(s) consent to receive [a generous action that allows each person to give]. This requires constant communication between givers and receivers to make sure everyone is an informed consenter.

3

But I already told you that in objective morality radical things can be good. So, this is just a faith or belief that objective morality will support human flourishing or all that. What if objective morality isn’t like that? Will then will you do that radical, cruel thing just because it is objectively good? If no then does morality even matter? If not then what we should do?

4

Objective morality does exist. Morality does matter.

Understanding objective morality requires good conceptual thinking skills. In my experience the vast majority have never developed good conceptual thinking skills. From what I can tell, this has always been true.

Like most you seem to think of morality in terms of an accretion of individual “actions” and/or “values”. With such an approach, you will never understand morality. Instead you need to go up a level of abstraction - or ten.

Distill morality down to its essence. Identify a sound conceptual foundation of morality upon which to build a sound moral framework. Use it to identify what is and is not truly moral.

5

Consider in that objective morality killing, torture, slavery is good. Will you do it just because it is objectively good? At the end objective morality is a morality which is mind independent and if that’s the case then it is possible in objective morality cruel things are good. So, that’s the thing I am talking.

6

I think there might be a language barrier. I sincerely apologize.

7

Then read the post carefully.

8

You seem to be completely lost. You seem to be starting with a nonsensical concept of morality

Let’s try beginning with a solid definition of morality:

Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups.

From <https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-morality-5076160>

Following is a stronger version of the above:

Morality refers to the set of standards for a group of people living cooperatively that maximizes the well-being of each member of the group and the group as a whole.

Objectively, how can morality not prohibit things such as “killing, torture, and slavery”?

9

As far I understand morality is the value judgement of goodness or badness towards an action.

10

Then you need to gain a better and much deeper understanding of morality.

Be that as it may, how about answering the question from my previous post?

11

But I guess my that understanding is pretty much correct.

12

Only a lifeless binary processing biological machine claims that good is bad and bad is good Arzin which is the automated side of your nature.

There is no life in the physical,only existence.

We know this because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist (which is binary).So we know that as a very minimum we are lifeless binary processing biological machines which exist and claim things.

You need to be separated from binary to possess metaphysical life.

We know +=- and -=+ philosophy doesn’t work in the physical BECAUSE you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist so there is no non existence in the physical,not when it comes to the claimant.

If you want your non existence back….you have no option but to accept the metaphysical.

13

Even if we consider an objective morality, there is no proof that in that objective morality the things you intuitively consider good will be good, and the things you intuitively consider bad will be bad. This is just a philosophical faith; there is no logical contradiction or anything that necessitates that the things we usually consider bad will actually be bad in objective morality. Maybe in objective morality the things we usually consider bad are actually good, and the things we usually consider good are bad. So, the scenario I described isn’t impossible. And consider that if it were the actual case, that you somehow came to know that many cruel and heinous actions like killing, torture, and all these things are objectively good, would you do them, or would you just ignore it and be objectively bad? If you choose the second option, then maybe morality doesn’t matter.

14

You’re thinking like a binary processing biological machine which exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist and so can’t cancel its self out and certainly doesn’t possess life Arzin.A binary processing biological automated machine can’t process good and bad moral absolutes.Its a machine!!!

This biological machine processes binary data energy waves only emitted from vibrating matter.Matter made up of nothing but spinning particles with N and S poles whose electromagnetic force interactions NN;NS;SN;SS with other spinning particles are vibratory balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S thus all matter is held together vibrating and varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves containing binary data are emitted from it.The spin speed of the particles regulating the amount of energy emitted.

We know that the physical body biologically machine picks up (via the antenna senses) and converts binary data (contained within waves of varying frequency energy emitted from ALL vibrating matter) into a 3D experience of sounds,visions and sensations that the SELF which is metaphysical interprets.

So we have the reality science that explains everything and it definitely isn’t mainstream science.

15

I exist/I don’t exist is binary processing biological machine thinking/reasoning.

A binary processing biological machine exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist.We know that.

So if you don’t exist it means that you don’t possess life because you definitely exist because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.

This philosophy is totally sound and exposes mainstream science as total fake nonsense.

16

Morality boils down to our beliefs about right and wrong. What is good, what is bad. Not just for ourselves but generally and for others too. Everyone needs to figure that out for themselves just like with any beliefs. Traditionally there has been a degree of social consensus on many moral issues. And it would be important to look at what causes moral beliefs, where do specific moral beliefs come from and why? There are always reasons why they are there. Those reasons help us to understand the beliefs themselves.

But at the end of the day, does it really matter if morality is subjective or objective, as you asked? All beliefs are probably a combination of subjective and objective.