Morality

>>3173695
History and humanities, not philisophy
>>>/lit/

>>3173729

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities#Philosophy

>>3173695

I think you have resolved it. Morality is a human construct and has only the force we give it. Humans have evolved a sense of morality (evident in babies) because it is prosocial and thus aids the survival of the species.

Therefore you should voluntarily bind yourself by the dominant public morality in your area when your actions are traceable to you, but act in your own self interest when you can get away with it

>>3173695
You're right. Morality is a structure to reach your arbitrarily chosen end-state. If you make up rules willy-nilly you're an idiot. You can still have general rules like not killing unprovoked because the breakdown in order is undesirable and generally speaking killing someone unprovoked is bad. People with a God or something else that creates a universal standard can get away with arbitrary rules but unless you're just invoking your deity you have to justify each layer of morality by ensuring its cohesive and points towards the same goal.

Metamodernism provides the answer.

All narratives are problematic, but narratives are useful.

Therefore, follow or create a narrative wherein whatever is useful to you in the long-run is moral. Then stick with it, unless circumstances change radically. Create arguments for why these actions are moral to explain why you use this morality to other people.

>>3173695
Human morality has changed over the course of history.

From being naked to stoning people to death to having the entire body covered except for the eye to being naked. The moral relativism is due to inherent human nature. If human were static people, moral staticism would make sense. But that's just chasing a ghost at that point. No-thing in the universe is static. Everything moves according to another.

>>3173827
just because jungle niggers thought murder was okay at some point in time, doesn't mean that it was