Isn‘t this just the typical oscillation from virtue ethics (mindset is most important) to consequentialism (results are most important) and sometimes deontological ethics (acting itself is most important). This seems to swing like a pendulum every few decades into the „mainstream“. Depending on how/where/when you grew up, one of these is your „moral compass“ (which lead to preferential world views like individualism, utilitarism, ...). This „moral compass“ often changes over time and your own kids will probably have a different starting point.
„Moral“ is just an ordered set of values that feels „obvious“ or „innate“ to you, but other people (especially from different ethical axioms, see the three above) have other ordered sets.
All of them have their downsides and have been en vogue since Aristoteles, still societies (or political parties) basically argue over the exact same stuff for millenia without any progress whatsoever.
Why the long intro? I basically consider the concept or even discussion about „moral“, especially „which would be better“ not only pointless but actually harmful.
(not a perfect analogy: asking „what was before the (original) big bang“ makes no sense assuming our concept of time started with the big bang. But this question probably killed/tortured less people in history than confrontations resulting from conflicting sets of moral values).
Escape hatch from here? Nietzsche actually saw that coming, dont just stay at nihilism/absurdism but maybe read „beyond good and evil“... :)
Part of the "trap" is implicit assumption of the subject / object distinction, which we are stuck with so long as we use language to think and communicate. But all human expression is generated from an initial non-verbal intention. So I think "trying to do good" is actually fundamentally important, because it's the precursor to good things happening
„Moral“ is just an ordered set of values that feels „obvious“ or „innate“ to you, but other people (especially from different ethical axioms, see the three above) have other ordered sets.
All of them have their downsides and have been en vogue since Aristoteles, still societies (or political parties) basically argue over the exact same stuff for millenia without any progress whatsoever.
Why the long intro? I basically consider the concept or even discussion about „moral“, especially „which would be better“ not only pointless but actually harmful.
(not a perfect analogy: asking „what was before the (original) big bang“ makes no sense assuming our concept of time started with the big bang. But this question probably killed/tortured less people in history than confrontations resulting from conflicting sets of moral values).
Escape hatch from here? Nietzsche actually saw that coming, dont just stay at nihilism/absurdism but maybe read „beyond good and evil“... :)