Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA
1. What is good/morality?
2. Who gets to decide what is good/moral and what is not?
3. Why should I care? If I decided killing someone is good, should I go ahead?
I don't feel like reading through the brick walls of text that are present in this thread, but I will address these questions.
1. and 2. Metaphysics decides what is good, and therefore, what is moral. You can form your own morality based on eating pizza. According to that morality, you will do everything you can to eat pizza since that is at the top of your moral hierarchy. What improves your chances of eating pizza is moral and what lowers them is immoral.
Your morality is not moral, in an objective sense. Why is eating pizza the highest goal of their morality? If you cannot provide valid reasoning as to why pizza is the good
then your morality is not objective. In order to find the objective morality, we must ask what we mean by "objective" and then we must find what we mean when we say "good."
What does "objective" mean? We could use the dictionary to solve this problem, but what is more important than a dictionary definition is what objective means in the statement, "What is the objective morality?" Of course, we are specifically refering to humans. That means that we are asking "What is the objective morality for humans to follow?" Now we know that "objective" is the opposite of "subjective." "Subjective" pertains to the individual, whereas objective pertains to the whole. So we are asking the question, "What is the morality for all humans to follow?"
We already answered the questio, "What is morality?" Morality is a set of principles which leads one to his goal. We are finding a set of principles, which will lead all humans to their goal. Now, the only thing we need to know is what the objective human goal is.
The good in human life is pleasure and the evil is pain. If one immerses himself in a pleasurable moment, not thinking about its consequences or the sequence leading up to it, he experiences the "good" moment. Of course, the opposite would be a bad moment.
What leads to more pleasure is good, and what leads to more pain is evil. I would like to stress that this is not hedonism we are looking at. Hedonism persues the pleasure of moments. Wouldn't more pleasure in the long run be better. If you can guarantee future pleasure, wouldn't that be better than sacrificing the future for a moment of pleasure. After your moment is up, you are thrust into moments of pain, which is the evil. Hedonism cannot be the objective morality.
3. If killing someone is good, according to the objective morality, than one should go ahead and kill someone. However, I would argue that it would be irrational to kill any human who is not a threat to you. Once you acknowledge that you will kill people at will, people don't want to be around you any more and will probably want to kill you. The highest human relations are win-win situations, and since we are social beings, we benefit from from these situations the most.