Moral Preferentialism & Moral Fires
All is permissible, all that is deemed good, bad, and evil. Yet, most do nothing with this permissibility, nothing good, nothing bad, and nothing evil. Moral monsters are rare creatures.
The origin point of morality comes from the very recognition of the notions of good, bad, and evil. For our purposes, it is not important how these moral recognitions came to be; rather, it is only important that they came to be at all. We have too great a phenomenological distance as to how Zarathustra first recognized the notions of cosmic good and evil. We are even further from that individual who first recognized the notions of good and bad. We are even at a great distance from when we first recognized that something, anything, was good or bad.
If there is moral objectivity, there is an issue that Zhuangzi points out: we have no means of measuring it. Therefore, we must remain agnostic on the question of moral objectivity and instead look at how morality is practiced and understood. While we cannot prove by any means if moral claims are right, we can certainly see how morality goes about sociologically.
No two egos hold the same moral positions. Probability and practicality dictate that if multiple individuals are given an unlimited number of situations, they will eventually assess a situation differently. There is no consensus on morality and no system to measure moral validity. There are no fixed standards. Morality does not operate like mathematics; various answers to any situation could be assessed as right, wrong, good, bad, or neutral. Morality does not come with an answer key. In morality, bias is always at play. Every being that adopts morality is their own moral agent. Biased moral agents tend to adopt the values of others rather than forge their own.
Everyone already possesses preferential morality. Preferential morality is not a recommended mode of morality, but is already and can be the only established mode of morality. Morality can only be preferential. Morality already has been and shall always be preferential. One claiming chaos would arise from preferential morality ignores that preferential morality is already the state of affairs. Are they blind to the flames?
All matters of mortality and all moral categorization are preferential. Obviously, these moral preferences exist within a set of conditions and, most often, social conditions. These conditions, very much including the social conditions and outlooks, are not objective views but clearly subjective views. What could or would morality even be without a subjective view? Each being is their own moral lawgiver, the kindler of their own flame, and the builder of their own fire pit. Yes, it is the case that fires and fire pits are made based on the surrounding materials. However, there are inexhaustible ways to create fires and fire pits.
Our morals often change towards those perceived as winners. This is why the championship teams pick up so many fair-weather fans. Winning is seen as an inherent good, which it is not; it is simply a perceived good. Many can easily be seen as valiant in defeat. Could loyalty also not be seen as a higher good than victory? The most common good, sadly, is the good of the winner. This is not to say that the victors always write history; this is to say the victors most often write history. Yet, the stories of losers and bums can sometimes have their own good, look at the likes of Charles Bukowski.
One should put out the flames of old with new fires. David Hume nailed only a section of the moral preferentialist formula. Indeed, emotions shape our moral understanding, but it is not only emotions that determine our morals. Emotions are but one aspect of preference; culture, class, and physiology are included; myriad factors shape our preferences. Moral preferentialism states that morals are always a matter of preference. Every morality has its own grammatical rules. Each morality places its commas, its exclamation, its periods, and so on in differing spots. All morality has a structure that makes demands of the user because the user must make use of and follow a particular grammatical rule set.
Virtue cannot be passive; living monsters always breathe! We all and always act upon preference! Is a misjudgment not still a judgment? Morality implies a final point, the good and bad, as the very ends, as if reality is not inexhaustible. Saying I am good, modest, generous, or so on implies an end that cannot be the case.