Why Every Moral Philosopher Ever to Philosophize Was Wrong

Many philosophers over the years have attempted to set down a definitive guide to human morals (I took intro to moral and political philosophy last semester). Aristotle espoused Greek virtue, about the higher ideals for all humans to aspire to like eudaimonia. Emmanuel Kant tried to create a moral law-formula, the categorical imperative, to define what's right and wrong in terms of of the context of human society as a whole. Utilitarians defined right and wrong in terms of the "happiness" utility of an action.

Early on in the semester we discussed moral relativism, the idea that everyone's morals are of equal truth value. It was dismissed however, for 3 reasons. If moral relativism is true, then no one society can justify criticizing another society because their morals are true too. You also cannot criticize aspects of your own society because every value held is true. There is also no such thing as societal progress or degeneration either.

The problem with these criticisms is that there's no logical fallacy committed in them that invalidates moral relativism. We just don't like the outcomes so we say that it's wrong.

I argue that as inherently artificial constructs, morality is entirely relative form person to person and thus moral relativism is true. From a truly objective standpoint, all morals are true which is to say that all morals are false too. Objectively human societies never progress or degenerate, they just change.

I think theres a strong difference between objective and subjective morality. Objectively moral relativism is true, but subjectively (because objective moral relativism is true), we are free to believe in whatever morals we want. That includes the ability to criticize others for their moral beliefs. This is totally valid although it should be conducted under the assumed knowledge that there is no objectivity to back such claims.

Because of objective moral relativism no attempt to set down a definitive set of moral principals will ever succeed. Societies and their morals are always in flux, and therefore anything set in stone will become obsolete.

Some claim that societal morals against things like murder invariably lead to a healthier society and are therefore proof of some sort of definitive objective morals. Thats false. Such morals maybe conducive to societal well-being, but that doesn't mean that they hold universal truth value. One way to truly think objectively is to remove qualifier words from your vocabulary.