In philosophy truth, morality, and what’s best for us are common topics. I often see all three of these as the same thing, but I argue that they are not. Let me explain.
We have yet to devise a way to verify any truths so far. Our values are relative. Morality condemns certain practices, and what’s best for us/society can speak of these same practices, but they are built upon different arguments.
Morality is a philosophy and a theory; it changes over time and is constantly improving. To claim that we have found objective morality is incorrect. It is all subjective, imagine how our morals will change in the future. Our ancestors would have considered our views of today to be highly immoral.
Sometimes what is best for us is not what is moral. Morality demands sacrifices that are not beneficial to the individual in certain instances. Doing what is right is not going to guarantee your survival, but doing what’s best for your survival increases your chances.
We do not know what the truth is, so we do not know its nature. We cannot claim to know that the truth will be what is moral or what is best for us, claims about the truth must wait for the truth to be discovered. In the mean time we have morality — a very profound philosophy. And we have what’s best for us — an applicable theory in science. They are all related, but they are not the same thing.
The truth could be that what’s best for us is to abolish morality. Each one of these ideas stands on its own and we can only prioritize one. The question in my mind is what will lead to more human happiness? Morality, or what’s best for us?