The dichotomy that I am yet to dispel: there is or there isn't objective morality.

1. If there is no objective morality, then is tolerance and acceptance the only things that bind society together. Would subjectivity not eventually tear us apart like a dying sun?

2. If there is an objective morality, is there such thing as true evil? Who decides? If it is the divine, then is free will but an illusion?

----------

Edit: 26th Feb 2021

There is an objective morality. Humans are all preprogrammed (please see chapter Free Will), therefore we all have an innate morality. 

----------

Edit: 28th Feb 2021

Life is a MMORPG/ Sandbox anarchy server: Mass multiplayer offline role-playing game with the freedom to do what one wishes. Currently we favour anarchy - we establish our own societies and endure to co-exist in a world where we ourselves limit each other. However, we overlook that objective morality is the foundations of the RPG segment of life. Indeed the anarchy is enjoyable in its own way, yet the objective truth (which progress has been made towards with the UDHR) remains a staple for true equity. 

----------

Edit: 16th Mar 2021

Superficially, human nature is volatile,irrational and ultimately paradoxical where dichotomies are one and the same; however,just as a circle is to a square what a square is to a triangle what a triangleis to a squre, each shadow can be reconstituted into a dimension of Absolute Truth. 

----------

Edit: 12th Apr 2021

What is innate and what is a priori is not the same. Innate are things such as the nature part within the "nature vs. nurture" argument; the genes that carry transgenerational trauma; the programming that leads to imprinting and reflex motions. A priori, on the other hand, are not of the flesh but is of the soul. It is what we are before DNA; before birth; before life. A priori is the objective essence that makes us human that is independent of time and space.

Objective morality is a priori.

Subjective morality is a combination of innate factors and epistemic contextualism.

Subjective morality can lead to objective morality though. This can be achieved through a process similar to triangulation; similar to transcendentalism; similar to syncretism. Objective morality is a dot in the centre and each thread of subjective morality is a near miss that almost touches the border. Objective morality is like a suspended droplet of water at the centre of a dream catcher crafted from a concentric circle made of radial lines – subjective morality is so close, but like parallel lines, they are close but never intersect.

If subjective morality is likened to the conscious, then meta-ethics and objective analysis of morality by epistemic contextualism is the subconscious, then objective morality is the unconscious. 

----------

Edit: 19th Apr 2021

"Good is predicated on corruption and evil" - Deadman Wonderland ep. 12

----------

Edit: 6th May 2021

Just as chaos is born of order, just as randomness is a result of abstract (unfathomable) coding, existence as we (have yet to) know it is idiosyncratic on objective foundations. And this is vitally important.

If there does not exist an objective morality / truth / etc. then our lives are meaningless. What people don't understand is that idiosyncracy and subjectivity are perfectly suitable candidates as the basis of objective foundations – doing something for the sake of doing it. 

----------

Edit: 17th May 2021

Deontology is ethics based on external rules. Something is right or wrong because it has been defined as thus. (Sometimes viewed as the majority opinion)

Virtue ethics is ethics based on internal rules. Something is right or wrong because you define it by your own moral compass. (Sometimes viewed as the minority opinion)

Deontology should always be followed first until virtue ethics has been cultivated. Generally, if something is right, it probably is, however, if virtue ethics conflicts with the deontology, then the rule needs to be changed.

Most people are Sheeple and will follow deontology as dogma, however, deontological norms must always be flexible.

I.e.

It is ethically immoral to kill a person – deontology.

If the person is a threat to society, then it may be okay to kill them – virtue ethics.

Deontology and virtue ethics conflict so murder must be reviewed. Either the virtue ethic will be proven right or wrong dependent on the value of human life and the potential of threat to other lives.

Deontology can be viewed as quasi-moral objectivism. By challenging deontology through virtue ethics, we can get closer to the objective truth.

----------

Edit: 20th May 2021

Everyone is "morally blind", it takes deep introspection to formalise the haze and identify our a priori moral compass.

----------

Edit: 18th Jan 2021

Morality is arbitrary

Because we kill things for convenience

We kill bacteria because we want to live – but bacteria want to live too. Why do we deserve to live more than bacteria?

We kill trees because wood is convenient. Why do we deserve to take a life for convenience? If it would be convenient to kill someone, can I?

If morality isn't arbitrary and given by God, then why does God get to decide? If God doesn't decide and he follows morality, then isn't morality more god then God? Who decides on what is moral? If it is moral just because it is moral then why?

If God creates morality, then can God change morality whenever he feels like it?

How can we trust revelation? How can we prove that God has told us what is moral? Can we really base morality off of fate? For example, if we receive revelation that it is moral to kill someone, can we really look them in the eye and order them to die just because of our faith? How do we know that our faith is real? Perhaps the one we have been ordered to kill has a different faith which says murder is wrong. How do we know that their faith is false and ours is true?