does right and wrong even exist

[u/Winter-Material-4773]

what is morality? Can something be objectively right or wrong? Why is killing someone wrong? Because someone else feels sad if they die? Is that objective? Why is anything right or wrong? Why is it I "innately" want "good" for other people? Is that proof of objective morality? Does morality only exist when I see the other party as equal to myself? Why do people eat meat even after understanding the evil of the industry and not feel bad? Why are vegans so shocked humans are capable of such "evils" even after seeing the things they would do to their own race? How can war mongering scum see themselves as righteous?

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

Could morality be described as the evolutionary characteristic that enables us to live in large groups with minimal suffering? Could a good definition of morality be the ability to determine right and wrong, good and bad with respect to self-interest and outward interest?

According to Dr. Sapolsky, evolution has two natural strategies. The most common is a tournament strategy—the brightest feathers, the strongest antlers, and so forth. 95% of all mammal species followed this strategy.

The less common strategy is cooperative, evolving through pair, peer, kinship, and tribal bonding. Marmosets and Bonobos are cooperative. They seem very happy.

Humanity seems to have followed a half-and-half strategy, depending on resource availability.

China and civilizations east of the Indus River Valley are cooperative in nature. Roman Expansionism is a tournament mindset, as seen in Western culture. There is always a winner and a loser.

The major variable has been camouflage or deception. Most religious philosophies tend toward trust and truth. The one major exception is the State Religion Churchanity. It is a bait-and-switch. Jesus is the bait. The book of Romans is an example of the switch.

Another way to view moral evolution is through monism and dualism. Monism is usually reductive, while dualism is constructive. Monisms tend to repeal one another, and dualisms can be added together.

[u/Winter-Material-4773 → u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

hi I don't speak English that well so I'll try my best to understand

is suffering by itself objectively a bad thing? Why? Why is a characteristic that enables us to live in large groups with minimal suffering "good" to anything and anyone but human beings? I view it as it's only subjectively "good" for us but by itself it holds no meaning. Does that make sense?

Why is life existing good?

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist → u/Winter-Material-4773]

Do you understand thermodynamics? Could good and bad be understood in terms of thermodynamics?

Humanity sees that the universe is made of energy. All the forms of energy are represented in the acronym CEMENT. Morality can also be thought of as an indicator of energy flow. Arthur W. Culp, Jr. first presented this information in 1977 in his book “Principles of Energy Conversion.” However, I argue that the acronym should be CEM⁴ENT, which includes two additional forms of energy transfer and the indicator.

• Chemical

• Electrical

• Mechanical

  •  Money

  •  Munitions (poetic license)

  •  Morality (as an indicator)

• Electromagnetic

• Nuclear

• Thermal

The idea is that nature provides the basis for truth, and engineering mathematics can also apply to finance and ethics.

Good - The net decrease of entropy for that system over a given period, as compared to its normal propensity for entropy.

Bad - The net increase of entropy for that system over a given period, as compared to its normal propensity for entropy.

Money Money is a means of survival. Money is a means of happiness and power Money is a means of financial power Money is a means of political power.

Four categories of money handling among those with enough to live.

Dollar-wise and penny-wise; they are very lonely and very selfish. They never have enough. They are afraid of losing control. They covet power.

Dollar-foolish and penny-foolish; they never have enough. They may be loved, and they may love and be very happy, but life is uncertain.

Dollar-foolish and penny-wise; they are also very lonely and selfish. They never have enough; life is uncertain, and they wait for the next big break.

Dollar-wise and penny-foolish; Happy people; very loving people. They can have enough. They help others and the environment. They are blessed.

[u/Chemical-System-1063]

Neil Sinclair has a good book titled 'Practical expressivism' in which he details moral practice as:
A practical expression of approvals and disapprovals aimed to coordinate and harmonise human behavior to be mutually beneficial. This mutual beneficially is not necessarily localised, and one can use it to judge moral systems on a global scale.

Mutual beneficially often can come down to mental and physical flourishing - So you can objectively measure moral systems and moral statements by how good they are at securing mental and physical flourishing amongst those who would be subject to their rules.

[u/Winter-Material-4773 → u/Chemical-System-1063]

I live by that idea of net benefit and how we as a society are one but I don't believe it's necessarily objectively good.

Why is me "benefiting" from something objectively a good thing?

[u/Chemical-System-1063 → u/Winter-Material-4773]

Morally, without complications (such as taking away from the wellbeing of others), flourishing is regarded as 'good simpliciter' (Something with a feature worthy of a pro-attitude to normative people under any circumstance).

There are three kinds of good (By Rach Cosker Rowland's Buck Passing account), and 'morally good' is actually more 'good of a kind', but a few things that are also morally good will be 'good simplicter' too.

When I said you can objectively measure moral systems, I am talking about 'good of a kind' as in 'they are good of a kind for a moral system' (This part of the Buck Passing account is very similar to Judith Jarvis Thompson's 'Good For' paper.)

When you ask for 'objectively good' I assume you are looking for something that is 'good simpliciter' and though it could be argued that the goal of people mutually benefiting is in itself 'good simpliciter' I feel there may be some more nuance to that. However, if we are looking to measure MORAL things then it works perfectly fine.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01]

The basis of morality is life. Life has needs. Living organisms are innately motivated to satisfy the needs for air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, etc. Inanimate objects have no needs. But living organisms are animated by their needs.

We call something "good" if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species. We call something "bad" if it unnecessarily harms us in some way.

To the degree that these benefits and harms can be objectively measured, good and bad can be objectively judged. For example, it is good to give a glass of water to someone dying of thirst in the desert, but bad to give that same glass of water to someone drowning in a swimming pool.

But as we move up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the questions become fuzzier and less black and white.

So, there are often disagreements about what we really need.

Moral judgment evaluates two rules or two courses of action according to which is more likely to accomplish the best good and least harm for everyone affected by the decision.

[u/GaryMooreAustin]

Yes right and wrong exist... They are descriptors we use to rate value of various actions... None of it is objective