Real is a vague word, but yes thoughts/feelings exist. But they exist in a different way to something that exists outside the human brain. Unicorns and fairies don't exist in the same way that cats and dogs do. Morality likewise is an abstract conceptual framework that doesn't cohere with some externally existing, measurable thing that acts regardless of minds like gravity or the laws of physics. This is the subjective/objective divide. The trouble is that language and society usually make a category error treating good/bad as if they were things that objectively existed like rocks and sound waves rather than subjective and inter-subjective things like the laws of England or the worth of the pound. Given this, the strongest way to declare this error is to declare morality doesn't exist, in the same way that fairies don't exist. If this then leads onto a discussion about in what ways fairies exist then that's fine so long as all parties can agree that goodness, metaethically speaking, exists in the same sort of way as pixies do.
Again, there's no ethical discussion which can't be resolved (and which ultimately boils down to) by appeal to my personal interest. The language of ethics is largely a fool's errand if it seeks anything like an objective external should/ought to my behaviour (not least because humans likely don't have freewill which makes any sense of accountability moot). And if it acknowledges that ethics is really just an intersubjective social construct (and accepts that different individuals, societies, and species will have different ethical inclinations all of which equally have no connection to objective things) then it is reducible to simply thinking through whether what I hold to be in my own interest truly is, or is consistent with my other views on what is best for me. Ethical philosophy can, at best, reveal inconsistencies between our professed desires and our ethical choices, it cannot provide a normative framework by which to assess the goodness/badness of such-and-such an act.
I believe this can be tested out. Present me with any ethical conundrum, and I will say what I prefer from a purely self-interested perspective, and it will be seen that it pragmatically ends up the same as anyone else who tries to justify their moral choices with appeal to some external source of constraint.
Again, there's no ethical discussion which can't be resolved (and which ultimately boils down to) by appeal to my personal interest. The language of ethics is largely a fool's errand if it seeks anything like an objective external should/ought to my behaviour (not least because humans likely don't have freewill which makes any sense of accountability moot). And if it acknowledges that ethics is really just an intersubjective social construct (and accepts that different individuals, societies, and species will have different ethical inclinations all of which equally have no connection to objective things) then it is reducible to simply thinking through whether what I hold to be in my own interest truly is, or is consistent with my other views on what is best for me. Ethical philosophy can, at best, reveal inconsistencies between our professed desires and our ethical choices, it cannot provide a normative framework by which to assess the goodness/badness of such-and-such an act.
I believe this can be tested out. Present me with any ethical conundrum, and I will say what I prefer from a purely self-interested perspective, and it will be seen that it pragmatically ends up the same as anyone else who tries to justify their moral choices with appeal to some external source of constraint.
