An extremely silly blog post

This is an extremely silly piece I wrote the other day when I had nothing else to do, and had been triggered by the usual autistic deontology-utilitarianism "debates" on the web. Take it for what you will. 

Is there such a thing as objective morality? Here are some reflections.

Imagine being a rationalist-rational philosopher who just proved in an entirely unimpeccable way (based on First Principles) a moral truth objectively valid in all possible worlds. And therefore...what? 

Therefore nothing, of course. Why should anyone follow such a splendid derivation? And when people continue not giving a damn, the only thing the Meta-Ethical Philosopher can do is to scream at them "YOU ARE BEING IRRATIONAL". In all possible worlds, presumably. After all, proving *what* is moral isn´t the same thing as making people do it, right? There´s just one little problem: nobody gives a damn now either. 

So we are still left with the little problem of what really makes people act morally. It certainly isn´t a First Principle entirely valid even in the Antares star system. Here is an example.

Let´s assume you live in Death Valley. There is no real community, but you don´t care, because you want to live for yourself. So "game theory" doesn´t apply here. You don´t believe in the Bible. Nor can the law do anything in this remote area. Now, what´s to stop you from burglarizing the house of your mentally handicapped neighbor (there are a few scattered houses in the valley) and steal his chest of gold? Or perhaps your eudaimonistic goal in life is to become a really good serial killer, and hone your serial killing passions accordingly. (And yes, such cases do exist. Jeffrey Epstein got away with it for decades. That´s game theory for you, right there. Sure, he was eventually killed, but so what? Maybe that´s an acceptable part of the game.) 

I think it´s pretty obvious that the answer is "nothing". Unless...unless there is also a third scattered house in the valley. This house is inhabited by a former biker who just served 25 to life for killing four people. He was set free for good conduct after 25 years. The biker is two metres tall, looks like an American football player, has huge tattoos all over his body, and carries a machine gun the size of Kyle Rittenhouse. He is also the brother of the mentally handicapped man, the guy with the chest of gold you want to steal. 

So you decide not to do it, after all. 

That´s how morality works. Everything else is just vain philosophical conceit. Or shit. Or whatever whenever.

That was an extreme example. But less extremely too, a "truly rational" morality would have to base itself on really existing human nature. What else could it possible be based on? Presumably a combination of selfish genes, genetic altruism and reciprocal altruism. (And, I suppose, "the altruism of fear" as in the example above.) Perhaps the most rational morality is the one combining or balancing these traits: your individual freedom, the safety of your family (and the safety *in* your family), and reciprocity with whoever isn´t your family (be it another family, another tribe, the state, the gods - provided such exist, and so on), since reciprocity enhances freedom and/or security. 

Morality is often based on other factors, too. Compassion is one. The yuck factor is another. We-are-not-like-the-Gentiles is a third. Some kind of "cuz reasons" factor may be a fourth ("No, we don´t eat red apples. Why? No idea, we just don´t"). Such things are probably "irrational", that is, irrational as part of morality specifically (unless they are *part* of that morality, which makes them rational - such as compassion directed towards your sworn blood brothers in the biker Männerbund, let´s say). They may be rational for other, non-moral reasons. Or you may have to take them into consideration anyway. 

Which brings me to my next point. There will always be moral conflicts between the goals mentioned: individual freedom, family, community, deals with other communities. There will also be conflicts about how to deal with all the irrelevant cultural dross which doesn´t really have anything to do with morality sensu stricto. For instance, if a strong aversion to red apples helps save the world from a thermo-nuclear conflagration, should we concoct a noble lie about a god named Thermo-Nucleus who can be appeased by not eating apples in said color? Or would this lead to unwanted discrimination of the color blind?

The point is: even though there may be an Absolute Morality somewhere in the clouds, in the Third Heaven, or thereabouts (in fact, I do think there is!), down here in the valley of death, morality will always be gritty (and perhaps even a bit nutty). Perhaps the best solution to our moral principles is to admit this fact, and act accordingly. Maybe that will solve some of our conundrums. 

That, and a really big machine gun.