>>327514
>Plenty of 'true' ethics and philosophy is doing things you dislike or hate, which very much don't make you feel good
Then why do them?
>Here's some actual philosophy and ethics instead: a lot of you don't want to do is usually a sign of what is actually right to do.
And what is right to do?
Let me make a prediction: you are going to propose that either its about what makes you feel mist good and least bad in overall terms over the long run. Such as enduring a hellish life on earth in service to others for the sake of being rewarded with infinite paradise in heaven after you die. Notice that you still are minimizing pain/sadness and maximizing pleasure/happiness for yourself.
Or maybe you will pull an omelas where you can be someone who sacrificed their own pleasure and endures pain for the sake of others who receive more pleasure and less pain as a consequence, which seems selfless until I point out the pleasure one who would do such a thing would derive from having done so, and the pain one would receive from failing to do so, especially when the beneficiaries are ones kin and those they know and love like family and friends. Lastly, I find that most who make these sorts of claims tend to be hesitant once the call is made for them to actually be the one who goes through with it by the situation.
#notall but I've noticed that the Utilitarians and deontologists and abrahamics are full of nimbys who expect to be the beneficiary of their ideas, but not the ones who suffer or die for their sake.
Maybe you think following a rule is the most important thing, or cultivating some persistent character trait in yourself that you stay constant to. Well, that's the endpoint of egoism and other selfish moral systems, because Machiavelli pointed out that once one adopts the Sadean view that ones pleasure is Paramount, the recommendation machivelli would make is not to impulsively chase the most intense form of gratitude in a totally unrestricted manner, but instead to impose a set of rules upon yourself and cultivate a reputation by staying true to the type of character one would expect to get the most benefit out of playing, and to hold fast to these rules even in situations that would unambiguously reward you for breaking them in just this circumstance, because rules and character traits must be constant and unbreakable habits. So its self-discipline and not becoming an more beastlike animal that is the correct response to the idea of "what makes me feel most good and least bad is the best thing"
Another trap I've noticed is that we make a distinction between high pleasures and low pleasures that are upon examination completely arbitrary and baseless, the pleasure you feel from seeing a loved one express happiness is the same as the pleasure of experiencing it yourself, the same pleasure you get from buying a nice meal for yourself is the same as the pleasure you get from making a donation or volunteering to feed the hungry.
Its all just drugs, neurochemicals, and brain activities that reward or punish you with physical sensations and emotional feels. But when you make happiness and pleasure or pain and sadness into a part of your definition of what is good or bad, you make yourself into a drug addict chasing highs and escaping lows. We are all monkeys on juice, chasing highs and avoiding lows.
But by going past that into genetics, I've taken us from drugs to sex and violence, where replicating your distinctive genetics and removing competition to your genes becomes the new moral imperative. Here self sacrifice makes even more sense. And finally we have a sense of tribalism formally introduced and made into an official part of moral thought. Plenty of philosophers on the alternative right and third position would stop here.
But I want to go further beyond that and look to the ultimate lifeform that evolutionary processes invariably approach toward. And I think that's as far out as I could take ethics.
Now, I note that you didn't accuse me of using the naturalistic fallacy, and to be upfront with you, I am, using an is to derive and ought. But free will has left the meta long ago, and we know its all genes and the way they express themselves in response to a series of environments.
Also, if we untether morals from facts, then we destroy morality entirely, there can be no way of saying what is right or wrong, or making a judgement of anyone's actions, including our own, ethics requires that the actions we take and the way they affect things both internal and external to ourselves are used as the basis of our reasoning within this field, without it all ethics is rendered meaningless and impossible.