One of the downsides of philosophy is that it seduces some clever people into coming up with systems of ethics that their creators believe are objective.
The best we can say is we have an urge to organise as best we should, but the details are up to us, so, we then declare, it should be an objective real thing that this urges urges us, and but then, to make it consistent, or coherent, we both declare its realness (at its urging) while subjecting that objectivity to our other urges. Quite a complex. Quixotic is our natural form really.
No such thing as the ultimate good. There are immeasurable goods that promote each other through feedback loops which we discover through practice. Example: Work and play are both important and you can add to these two if you widen your experience.
The best we can say is we have an urge to organise as best we should, but the details are up to us, so, we then declare, it should be an objective real thing that this urges urges us, and but then, to make it consistent, or coherent, we both declare its realness (at its urging) while subjecting that objectivity to our other urges. Quite a complex. Quixotic is our natural form really.
It follows then, that it goes for the moral domain as well, in toto, (after Stich, well, in parallel) not just the moral realism side of things. https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/a-stich-in-time
We carry on regardless.
No such thing as the ultimate good. There are immeasurable goods that promote each other through feedback loops which we discover through practice. Example: Work and play are both important and you can add to these two if you widen your experience.