/lit/ - Literature

>>8838396
>>8838476
Shhhhhh, the adults are talking.

>>8838390

To understand morality outside of religious faith, you need to start at the foundation of civilization (metaphorically) - the founding of Plato's ideal nation-state, Rousseau's social contract, Locke's "man in a state of nature," and other such examples.

When you begin with a rudimentary society - a lone family, then a pair of families, etc., etc., or alternative versions of this - there are always modes of action leading to greater levels of collective benefit and methods which lead away from this or destroy the existing harmony.

Morality, is essentially the shunning of actions which generally lead to a destruction of existing social harmony, or which prevent the establishment of social harmony.

Civilization is essentially the balancing of human interests for the greatest collective benefit. In a pure sense, of course.
Realistically, there are always self-interested individuals who seek to manipulate systems to their private advantage at the expense of others within the system.

The reason this is "morally" wrong, is that it is a rejection of the system itself. The system is built on a balance of interests. To reject the balance and seek only self interest is the luxury of an isolated man. This is why society rejects those whose self-interested action poses a threat to systemic harmony via jailing, exiling, and executions.

These individuals choose to reject the system (which is their right) however, even while rejecting it they seek to remain within it to reap its benefits. Pure infantile insanity.

There is, of course, always an element of subjectivity to everything (as in, murder is wrong, but in circumstances a, b, and c it is right, etc.,...) the purpose of morality is the same as Plato's searching for ideal forms. We seek to get as close to Pure Objective Truth of right and wrong while recognizing that we will always be working within subjective subsets within the over-arching domains.

The reason an action like Murder can be considered morally "wrong" is simple: the byproduct of unrestricted murder is a breakdown of civilization and a return to barbarism.

It is literally that simple. The objectivity lies, not in our ability to be completely separate from human experience, but to look objectively at the byproduct of specific modes of action within the subjective domains of human interaction and civilization.

The "wrongness" of your choice to press the button, comes from your willingness to destroy social harmony for transitory, personal gain.

Personal "Good" v. Collective Good
Social Harmony v. Anarchy
Barbarism v. Civilization

This last of the dichotomies listed is really what the person choosing to push the button is deciding.

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling - I just woke up, but I hope this makes some sense and am willing to discuss it further.