A ( metaphoric ) point that I find humankind is ignoring/denying:

WHEN you’re on a bus that’s being driven by 1 or another gang, & those gangs are fighting each-other for supremacism/dominion, & they don’t care whether anyone survives, because it is their ruling that is the only thing that matters to them,

AND THE PATH THEY’RE TAKING IS FATAL TO THE WORLD,

it doesn’t matter “who” drives the bus when it leaves the cliff: the “stampeding off the cliff” is fatal to the whole herd, see?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is something that needs to be having ALL gov’t policies tied to it, when judging what is authorized, & what isn’t.

AND it needs to be the test for moralities, too.

Does something amplify the still-accelerating ClimatePunctuation?

IF so, THEN it has to have sooo much benefits that it’s worth it.

Does it protect the millenia-established male-bullying-female?

THEN it costs both current & future lives, and rights, and our species’ real-viability.

As many have pointed-out, male-bullying-female automatically shuts-down 50% of our brains being allowed to contribute to our surviving this-century, & that is idiotic or worse.

ALL the problems have to be seen, & balanced against each-other.

What Russia’s doing to Ukraine ( & soon to the EU as a whole ), what Trump will shortly be doing to Canada ( same as Russia->Ukraine, for the same colonial-imperial motivations ) are survival-grade problems.

Different election-systems/processes have long-term-morality consequences… making particular-futures more or less likely…

There’s an English mathematician ( redhead, kinda roundish, moved to Glasgow for professional reason, it was a yt video of his, aweful video, stupendous insight ) who identified that there is exactly 1 thing that all the most-successful complex-projects do, that none of the unsuccessful ones do:

create a functionally-complete visual-spacial model of the required system, leaving no kind of function out,

and only then begin the scaling of that model into implimentation.

Even questions of morality can be dealt-with this way, identifying that some choices extinguish us, & when people can SEE that, then our thinking changes.

It isn’t hearing-about this-issue, or that-issue, or whatever, it isn’t being reminded and holding-everything-in-our-heads,

it is SEEing it, as a visual-spacial model, so that the consequences become implied in how the representation looks, and then we can begin judging things objectively.

Now consider 2 allowed-futures, 1 where 50% of the human-lives have their life-potential stomped-on by male-supremacism, & the other where ALL humans are allowed contributing to our viability…

Which is more-likely to survive this-century’s Great Filter ( when a species that won’t grow-up has nuclear-level technologies, & does a multi-stage global tantrum-pogrom to beat/break/smash “god” into obeying unconscious-ignorances “godly” ENTITLEMENT, as the tantrum-toddler it is, that OUR OWN unconscious-mind is now enacting )?

That’s objective, not mere-opinion/cultural-opinion.

Here’s an example of competing-moralities:

Some want all internal-combustion-engines killed, today, no matter the cost.

Others want a phased switch.

I’m with the phased, but aggressive switchover people, simply because I know that if you kill all of them, immediately, then you’ve just executed the economic-viability of remote-regions, & their people.

City people don’t have a problem with policies which butcher rural lives: this is consistently proven…

& the remote lives of people who live … say in the Aussie outback, or in Canada’s north, or offshore … why should international-policy respect/value them, when they’re not where the money is, right?

But to me, you have to look at the whole overall, & consider all the effects, & balance the whole.

You can’t hold that women’s lifeworth “isn’t important enough to count in the world’s balance-sheet, because men never counted it in the past” … that isn’t good-enough.

Here’s another example of competing-moralities:

Which should we do?

Oppose the genociding of Palestinians, XOR oppose the genociding of Ukranians, XOR oppose genociding in Sudan, XOR oppose genociding in the Congo region, XOR oppose femicide in either China, XOR India, XOR here in the West?

The framing is the problem: it presumes that only 1 can be chosen.

Caving on ANY of these is … disintegrity, to be polite.

& caving on any of these will have strategic-survival consequences for our future.

The leaving-Somalia-to-piracy, and not providing them with any alternative, meant that they did convert to piracy, & now that piracy-economy can’t be removed: it’s now a whole world shipping problem.

The leaving-northern-Mexico-to-the-drug-cartels and not breaking that from ruling that country’s civilization, means that now those drug-cartels can’t be removed.

What we allow to set-deep-roots bites our future in the face, with venom, consistently…

All this to say, that … yeah, sometimes morality is objective, in spite of what the absolute-relativists pretend.

Red-meat based diet isn’t only economically strategic-suicide, & health ( yes, the heart-attack-rate is increased by eating red meat, no matter which country one is from ), but it’s also ecologically-suicide.

Opposing those facts is ideological/moral for some factions.

But objectivity must override ideology, XOR we, as a species, are … finished, this-century.

In Science there is a fundamental-principle: IF the experiment contradicts the theory, robustly, & it isn’t some confounding-factor, THEN the theory’s falsified.

Feynman was big on that.

Ideology-based “science” IS NOT Science, see?

All who hold that all questions of morality are only-cultural-opinion, & that there is no objective-standard that can validly be applied… the evidence contradicts that.

“it’s all relative” is an ideological position, but the fact that some choices produce greater-slaughter whereas other choices reduce harm … is real, is objective, is fact.

So, no, I do not accept that morality is only opinion/culture-habit, and is not in any way objectively-testable or objectively-measurable…

The problem is in finding which values are long-term, vs which aren’t,

in finding which values are concentration-of-benefits-to-few/eradication-of-benefits-from-many & forcing the measurement-system to correctly-identify that as narcissism, as it objectively is ( instead of the propaganda-is-“journalism” system we now have, brainwashing all the discussions )

in finding which values uphold the LivingPotential in all lives, vs the values which only value some lives’ potential…

etc…

Eventually patterns of bias become visible, & then one has to remember that universe’s Natural Selection law is going to be the final judge.

Our opinion isn’t what kills us when we stampede-off-a-cliff, right?

It’s the fact that we indulged in making-believing & now our bones & body-lives are broken, right?

The question of whether incompetence/intentional-ignorance is a socially valid decision, however: certainly it’s socially valid.

Stupid, but socially valid.

Humankind has every right to force its own extinguishment, while making-believing in ego-games, all it wants!

But there is “morality” in that snuffing-of-all-future-generations, too, isn’t there?

No, I do not stand with the “it’s all relative: no objective-standard for any moral-question exist, nor can it ever exist, & we ought just accommodate prejudice until it ceases perpetuating-itself, that’s the proper moral stand”.

Exactly as Martin Luther King, Jr, stated: accommodating injustice anywhere, is a moral crime: it means that fundamentally, one is accommodating injustice, & that has consequences everywhere.

Our world’s in a survival-of-the-fittest stage, natural for this level of population-saturating-the-planet, & which morality survives this-century will be decided by questions of moral-darwinism AND by questions of did-humankind-survive-or-not.

Women having equal-validity increases the odds of humankind-surviving this-century.

Women not being allowed equal-vality decreases the odds of humankind-surviving this-century.

The same is true of the question about oligarchy/corporate-feudalism/monarchy/etc … various concentration-of-rights-and-exclusion-from-rights paradigms.

Objective-morality requires that civil-rights stand against such privilege-rules-exclusively paradigms.

This, itself, is objective morality, in action.

( everybody, feel free to block me, as all logged-in people can do … see only what you want to be seeing, right? )

_ /\ _