We need morals because there would be utter chaos without them.
As to determining good morals, it isn't really a matter of feeling (although you could try to say that the suffering of being wronged is a feeling). Inevitably, there will be moral disagreement, and very few people are just going to let it slide and say all moral views are equal.
The reason why the "logical" thing to do and the moral thing to do don't always match up is because logic and morality are different domains. Logic, in and of itself, cannot be used. In order for logic to be used, it must be applied to something. There is nothing inherently logical about doing anything unless doing that things aids some goal. What is logical about eating if you are trying to starve yourself? Likewise, what is logical about stealing if you are trying to be a good person and keep society in order? The golden rule and empathy seem to be some of the strongest motivators for morality (in the case of the golden rule, one would of course have to take into account the differences between you and the other, i.e. a masochist who wants to be hurt doesn't have to right to hurt others).
Of course, some might still question whether the preservation of humanity and being kind to others has any real basis. Kant's categorical imperative states what we ought to do, as some sort of objective morality. However, it is difficult to demonstrate the validity of such a thing. You ought to follow the rules of logic, otherwise logic won't work and you will like in ignorance. But what if that is what you want? Well, then there is no way to convince you.
A better way to put this would be to use a hypothetical imperative summed up as the following:
If you value human life at all, then you should strive to be a good person.
If you do not place any value whatsoever in human life (and not because you are suicidal but because you have no conscience) then you should not value your own life either, and might as well:
As to determining good morals, it isn't really a matter of feeling (although you could try to say that the suffering of being wronged is a feeling). Inevitably, there will be moral disagreement, and very few people are just going to let it slide and say all moral views are equal.
The reason why the "logical" thing to do and the moral thing to do don't always match up is because logic and morality are different domains. Logic, in and of itself, cannot be used. In order for logic to be used, it must be applied to something. There is nothing inherently logical about doing anything unless doing that things aids some goal. What is logical about eating if you are trying to starve yourself? Likewise, what is logical about stealing if you are trying to be a good person and keep society in order? The golden rule and empathy seem to be some of the strongest motivators for morality (in the case of the golden rule, one would of course have to take into account the differences between you and the other, i.e. a masochist who wants to be hurt doesn't have to right to hurt others).
Of course, some might still question whether the preservation of humanity and being kind to others has any real basis. Kant's categorical imperative states what we ought to do, as some sort of objective morality. However, it is difficult to demonstrate the validity of such a thing. You ought to follow the rules of logic, otherwise logic won't work and you will like in ignorance. But what if that is what you want? Well, then there is no way to convince you.
A better way to put this would be to use a hypothetical imperative summed up as the following:
If you value human life at all, then you should strive to be a good person.
If you do not place any value whatsoever in human life (and not because you are suicidal but because you have no conscience) then you should not value your own life either, and might as well:
![[Image: 3qc53x.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=t.qkme.me%2F3qc53x.jpg)
