Hello,
My perspective on "objective morality" is that it exists in a very discrete way. Objective "Good" is constructive : killing to eat is "good", it's moral. Killing for fun serves no constructive purpose, so it's "evil". Killing somebody who's opening fire on a crowd is "good", while opening fire on a crowd is "evil". The common interest would define "good" and "evil" and what may appear on a small scale to be "good" or "evil" might turn up to be the contrary on a larger scale/over a long period of time. This would not mean that "normal" (commonly accepted) is "good" and that we could say for instance that "enslaving 10% of the population would be good because it would be a small sacrifice to favor the existence of the others"... since enslaving 10% of the population would lead to suffering, which would be shared and lead to thirst for revenge, hate,... affecting everyone negatively. If humanity hadn't spent so much time asking for the liberation of slaves, we would already be on every planet of the solar system... which would be "good" because it would increase immensly the chances of earthlings to keep existing. So, slavery is "evil" since it is holding us back from important things we have to do... since none will ever accept to be a slave forever and slaves will always rebel at some point... so it can't be sustained and is holding us back...
And that's where the concept of "free will" makes sense IMO. We cannot see much of the real "Good" and "Evil" since we do not understand the Universe yet, how it works and what we are supposed to do in it. But we can establish moral values based on our limited views. We are not bound to our old moral values because of this free will and the more our consciousness spreads, the better we will be able to make the right choices.
My perspective on "objective morality" is that it exists in a very discrete way. Objective "Good" is constructive : killing to eat is "good", it's moral. Killing for fun serves no constructive purpose, so it's "evil". Killing somebody who's opening fire on a crowd is "good", while opening fire on a crowd is "evil". The common interest would define "good" and "evil" and what may appear on a small scale to be "good" or "evil" might turn up to be the contrary on a larger scale/over a long period of time. This would not mean that "normal" (commonly accepted) is "good" and that we could say for instance that "enslaving 10% of the population would be good because it would be a small sacrifice to favor the existence of the others"... since enslaving 10% of the population would lead to suffering, which would be shared and lead to thirst for revenge, hate,... affecting everyone negatively. If humanity hadn't spent so much time asking for the liberation of slaves, we would already be on every planet of the solar system... which would be "good" because it would increase immensly the chances of earthlings to keep existing. So, slavery is "evil" since it is holding us back from important things we have to do... since none will ever accept to be a slave forever and slaves will always rebel at some point... so it can't be sustained and is holding us back...
And that's where the concept of "free will" makes sense IMO. We cannot see much of the real "Good" and "Evil" since we do not understand the Universe yet, how it works and what we are supposed to do in it. But we can establish moral values based on our limited views. We are not bound to our old moral values because of this free will and the more our consciousness spreads, the better we will be able to make the right choices.
