The present self is based on past and future experiences/expectations. These experiences are influenced by nature/nurture and present motives. Although the newborn is a blank slate, the experienced adult is not. Is there a moral system that does not contain biases?
If you were to base your morals on nothing, then self-interest would be its guide. Surely the person would seek to preference themselves over others in their need for survival. As does the self-centred newborn, who cares little for others while preferencing its fundamental needs. A purely instinctual moral system would drive humanity to its demise. Yet, instinct is the basis of all moral systems. Human experience builds upon instinct, deriving “right” from “wrong” in its attempt to structure itself. If morality is based on experience, then whose experiences are more moral? How can there be one “true” moral system if each person or society is different?
Can you define moral rules that do not impede on human experience? Or should morals be flexible, changing to fit the circumstance of the moral dilemma? Take for instance “thou shall not kill”, this commandment defines a simple imperative to not kill another. But in application, was based on “right” from “wrong”. This imperative is still applicable in the present but in a different social context. Thus, when is it acceptable to kill another? A basis may be in self-defence, if your life is in jeopardy by another, then you have the right to kill them. Although this comes back to instinct, people react differently, some are stronger than others, and have different experiences. Yet, you cannot “not” defend yourself, or is that the purest form of this moral principle?
How does an individual interact with another that holds a different moral system from them? Someone may deem killing as moral, while the other not. Can society function with conflicting moral systems? If one society permits violence and the other not, surely the violent society would persevere and irradicate the non-violent. Current moral systems thus allow for the preservation of themselves through social agreements, while implicating moral outsiders through physical and social altercations. Therefore, moral systems must have a self-preservation aspect to them for their continuity.
Coming back to biases in moral systems, one basis may be logic. If x + b = y, then b must be equal to y – x. If you can frame a moral system in factuality, then that moral system would be devoid of bias. However, in a subjective view, this system would be limited in application as morality is dependent on interpretation. Can you have an objective moral system, like x + b = y? In utilitarianism, happiness governs all, but happiness is not factual, it’s personal, thus subjective. To define an objective moral system would be instinctual, subjectivity is interpretation, and the brain is an interpretative system. Thus, an objective moral system would involve prevailing instinctual mechanisms, possibly preservation.
If something increases preservation it is “good”, if something decreases preservation, then it is “bad”. For “thou shall not kill”, the person may preserve their life to the point where it doesn’t infringe on another’s preservation. This would be the most “moral” in such a system. Yet, it begs the question of interpretation. How is the line drawn for preservation? In a bodily context, would the moral system see the person as a whole or a life? Would it stop at a loss of self or death? Probably death, someone may torture, abuse, and wear them down to near death, but not death. The person still has preservation, they can continue, yet it feels heinous, subjectively. Is a true objective moral system demise?
In subjectivity, people can kill, quarrel, thrive, and be free. In objectivity, people can live but are not free. In a subjective moral system, disagreements are frequent with wars and death, thus it is structured. In an objective moral system, life is chaos.