Making Moral Progress

Joe Folley, if I remember correctly, holds the idea that moral theses tend to be inspired by vague instincts to then expand outwards with formalizations and corrolaries.

Of course, with thought in the modern day being as decentralized as it is (in that a video essay, blog post, or twitlonger can come from anyone), this isn't unique to moral dissertations. For instance, conspiracy to hoard wealth notwithstanding, activism of all kinds follows more or less the same pattern:

• Somebody feels that something is a Morally Wrong Thing.
• They feel strongly enough to want to make this feeling universal.
• With this feeling, they craft and broadcast a message.

That said, people do not generally like doing Morally Wrong Things for no good reason. Everbody makes their own compromises. But even with this understanding, it's hard to stop ourselves from thinking that

If I were that person, I would just, like, not do that.

Corresponding to the pattern of moral advocacy above, I want to put forth three broad categories into which perceived occurences of Morally Wrong Things tend to fall:

• A misalignment of feeling.
• An overshadowing of intensity.
• Hubris.

Misaligned Moral Codes: Sociopathy

I hear it sometimes argued that the fact that all people(s) across all landmasses and cultures discovered or otherwise share some common moral tenets points to the existence of a higher lawgiver of our moral instincts, i.e. God.

Insufficient Moral Intensity: Veganism

Stoicism and practicing what you preach

Active Moral Suppression: Fascism

It is often difficult to distinguish this case from the first case, i.e. misaligned moral codes.