The adversarial system is the best we've come with in law and government. It seems, relying on opponents to keep each other honest, is a tool worth using.
"Moral" is a problematic word with religious baggage. If you exclude the words "right", "wrong", and "ethical" from the debate, you make things easier as well.
If you simply use the word "strategy" instead, most heated arguments vanish. Yes, there are foundational social strategies that exist in every successful human culture. It's pretty easy to account for why that is the case, and no reason to oppose the idea that such commonalities exist. And looking at the other side of the argument, "strategic relativism" isn't that inflammatory either, of course you'll find unique and situationally inspired strategies too.
If you refuse to engage with a challenging concept and instead talk about something else entirely, you make things easier. Go figure.
Strategy helps us decide which actions will help us reach a goal. It does not tell us what that goal should be. It has practically nothing to do with morality. Human societies adopt different means but they also work towards different ends.
This is trivially debunked. People regularly sacrifice themselves because they think it is right. You could say soldiers fight to protect their kin, but people sacrifice even out of devotion to ideas like truth and honor. There are people who refuse to kill animals, even ones as distantly related to us as octopuses, because they think it's wrong. There are people who vow celibacy out of religious obligation, like the Shakers who abstained themselves out of existence. These things cannot be easily explained in your framework.
It can't be disputed that morality is partly instinctive. There are those who argue persuasively that morality is largely self-deception, with our alleged values being just a way of rationalizing our instincts. I think you have something of a point. Still, your simplistic version is just plain wrong.
This, exactly. I think most people don't even realize why they feel something is right or wrong or what it even means for something to be "moral"
At our core, everything we feel is based off self-preservation -- for ourselves, offspring, family, mates. Instinctually, the concept of what is "morally right" comes down to "what strategy will ensure my self-preservation best".
Most humans are smart enough to realize that a strategy made up of a lot of win/lose confrontations is unlikely to end well in the long run. Ergo, morality is simply the current best strategy for individual self-preservation given the current state of human knowledge.
Not the OP, but I feel the racially focused initiatives of today are misdirected, counterproductive, and themselves racist. And like you, I deem it as not in my best interest, or society at large, to endorse or support those who are doing the wrong thing (even if they are doing so with the best of intentions).
