/lit/ - Literature

>>11139995
I had a long talk with my mother for a few hours about this. We branched off to many topics, but I formulated an opinion about morality that satisfied parts of my desire for a collective purpose. I'm probably not going to explain it very well, I'm still in the works of trying to figure it out, but if you recommend any books that might also share the same view, I'll be sure to pick them up.

I believe morality to be completely objective. When we talk about morality we likely bring up instances of subjectivity like killing another person or stealing. I don't believe this is deep enough to be considered a moral law, instead it is something else. Morality must be explained as a basic perception of any given situation, and the most basic method of thinking about it for me is saying something along the lines of,

"The desire for a fair exchange"

In every moral instance that I've thought about so far, an exchange is at the heart of them all. Every decision we make, seems to come down to this desire of fairness. Fairness of course is subjective, but this is where the tricky part comes in. The morality is not whether something is or is not fair, but rather that it must meet your measurement of fairness. This way, everyone's moral values are the same. "The exchange must be seen as fair for it to be good" If it isn't fair, it is deemed evil.

The subjectivity plays about when we actually measure it. Take for example the killing of another person. I had a conversation with a friend about whether they believed it was right or wrong to kill a person, and they said that it depended on the situation. You could stop here and say that this moral question must be subjective, but I don't believe it is. Instead, I asked the question of what situation would it be ok? They responded that if they were a multiple offense rapist, a child molester, or a mass murderer. I took that into question, and I thought to myself, "Well the base thing that we both agree on is that to take a life, there must be a sufficient reason." They said yes to this, and this is where I believe the moral sits.

The objective moral that we all agree on is, "in order for an action to be morally good, it must be a fair exchange." We all strive for the same thing, fairness in the world. Nazis who murdered millions of people believed their enemies to be lower than them, like rodents making up an infestation. In their minds, the exchange was justified. Their fair trade requirement was met. Depending on your views today, you may think it was immoral. Your fair trade requirement for this instance is not met, thus it is evil. That's the subjectivity, but not the actual moral value.

We all share the same moral value, we are all measuring the same thing. Am I full of shit?