[downvote explanation] This seems to be rambling on a very large topic, without much framing or rigor about what is the point. I can’t tell what you’re seeking comments on, or what updates you hope readers will make. I happen to agree with (what I think is) your core belief that all morals and ethics are created by social context rather than being physical law.
Two examples of things that make this a weak post:
For a good 2,500 years or so humanity has been struggling to find quite a lot of things, but especially importantly what we should do and why.
It’s been either FAR longer or a bit shorter than 2500 years, depending on what dimensions of struggle you focus on, and I’m very confused why THAT is what you consider especially important. It’s not, to most people most of the time.
Using a form of theory reductionism, we can take a given ethical theory like virtue ethics to be blatantly false.
“requires axioms” or “not apriori justified” is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT from “blatantly false”.
[downvote explanation] This seems to be rambling on a very large topic, without much framing or rigor about what is the point. I can’t tell what you’re seeking comments on, or what updates you hope readers will make. I happen to agree with (what I think is) your core belief that all morals and ethics are created by social context rather than being physical law.
Two examples of things that make this a weak post:
It’s been either FAR longer or a bit shorter than 2500 years, depending on what dimensions of struggle you focus on, and I’m very confused why THAT is what you consider especially important. It’s not, to most people most of the time.
“requires axioms” or “not apriori justified” is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT from “blatantly false”.