A “solution” that isn’t viable nor palatable isn’t a true solution; it is often merely a hope that people are not people.
> That's like giving up and saying there are no solutions to hard problems.
Not at all. I'm simply defining a solution as one that has some probability of traction.
Any solution that violates this boundary condition is "objectively bad", that is, cultures that follow this solution disappear and thus lose the evolution game.
1. There are a set of things that are nearly objectively true across nearly all cultures. For example, random killing for selfish purposes is not ok.
2. I'm not a moral relativist, in two senses. First, the "weak" sense: I would prefer to live in some moral systems more than others. Second, in "nearly-strong" sense: some moral systems are 'nearly' objectively better than others (see point above). (Note: my definitions are imprecise; still working on how to square them with existing philosophical writings.)
3. Even for people that evaluate the morality of something according to its effects (consequentialists), there is considerable room to debate the relevant time frame.
Not at all. Where are you getting that?