May I point out that it is not a roadblock preventing knowledge in this field but rather your belief that morality is a social construct that prompted your comment.
May claim was:
If you halt the pursuit due to a roadblock to knowledge then you are foolish.
I did not claim:
If you halt the pursuit due to believing it to be worthless then you are foolish.
Please note the difference between the first (my claim) and the second (your preliminary misinterpretation of my claim)
Fair enough.
Mea culpa.
You point out the truth that morality was initially used as a tool to control the masses. However a concept being used for control does not prove or even supply evidence toward it being false.
That is true. However, what I was mostly driving at is that it was created for that purpose, which makes it more difficult to use existing concepts of morality as an argument supporting an objective moral code. To be fair here, you are trying to avoid this. It's more of a reference point for other people reading the conversation.
Now for clarity:
You do not believe that morality has any objective nature?
I guess if this is true then I would like to gain insight into yet another amoralist viewpoint.
What should you do? This is a personal question about what you believe you should do and why? What is the motive that guides you if not morality?
I don't see any evidence to suggest that morality is anything other than a human construct, and therefore relative to social norms and based heavily on those memes that have built up in society to ensure its survival. It is my opinion that the variance of moral codes across societies supports this.
Given that, it is my consideration that a person has nothing that they "should" do from an objective viewpoint. Subjectively, it seems that we are under a number of motivations which originate from a mix of instinctive responses and programmed responses - a mix of nature and nurture on our actions - ranging from the drive to reproduce and survival instincts, to the tendency towards obedience to authority and not rocking the boat, to the tendency to screw other people over if the benefit is large enough. Of course, many of these drives are in opposition, and balance each other
1. Many of these things are beneficial to society as a whole and to the people within them, which is why they have survived on the genetic and memetic levels. Even more interesting is that the system is capable of self-modifying, so that a person may reason themselves into assigning different weights to different actions (usually this has its roots in some external source somewhere though). Of course, like any set of variables across a population, sometimes the system turns out differently - this leading to sociopathic or extremely altruistic behaviour.
1 This has interesting parallels to the most successful artificial intelligences yet designed - a number of inputs produce competing drives in various directions: the balance of this
pandemonium determines the output. It is unsurprising that our brains would work the same way.
