Is it possible for humans to have multiple philosophical structures or methods which are morally equal? From a moral relativist point of view, this is valid, but in actuality we are given a different situation, if we can look closer at what such claims imply. Sam Harris presented an objective method to which we can hypothetically determine better or worse methods, actions, and structures in the moral sphere, based on what is being used to determine what ought to be, in other words, we can scientifically determine, if given the requisite measuring tools and causal prediction datum, the conclusion of better or worse answers to moral questions. This method relies upon the acceptance of a moral axiom that the worst possible suffering for all sentient life is what would be considered an Absolute “Bad” in moral terms, and any movement away from this would be “good”. Suffering that is necessary to learning or developing, or suffering with a silver lining, or “tough love”, isn’t ruled out in this framework, and also, in its long term benefit, can still be accounted for. Pure pleasure or bliss isn’t measured as the extreme end of “Good”, but rather what is meaningful, beneficial, and useful, in totality, including some pain and suffering and hard lessons, may all be included under the title of “wellbeing”, to greater or less degrees. What is moral therefore isn’t simply what is nice, or hedonistic pleasures, but is much more nuanced in its implications.

 Given our experience, we can have better or worse states of mind, modes of being, and conscious experiences. We can be better equipped to navigate life, and less equipped. We can face difficulty, to degrees, and we can experience wellbeing, to different degrees. These degrees and modes of being are preconditioned by circumstance, knowledge, and actions, which effectively modify our experience. Due to the experience of life being modifiable by actions, and due to the differing degrees of wellbeing which are produced in correspondence to action, or knowledge, or in general, differing factors, there necessarily implies better or worse preconditions in relation to the effect of actions in their manifestation.

As there are better or worse ways to orient yourself in the world, and therefore in terms of action, and frameworks for action, (value systems, philosophies, psychological tools) we will always produce a hierarchy in useful beneficiality. In analyzing the results of factors on the conscious states of those affected, we can easily intuit better or worse actions, modes of being from which actions stem, and preconditions in their relation to the effects caused, and deem one better or worse than the other, in direct relation. In the rare case that two different methods, moral systems, or actions, produce the apparent same consequence, take the same amount of time, effort, energy, competence, all factors equal, yet the result was acquired in different ways, I think it is still possible for one method to be morally superior to the other, in terms of its impact on all conscious creatures, in the method employed in achieving the same end goal, meaning, technically, a different end result. One method may provide an understanding more useful to the individual than the other knowledge upon creating the end consequence, in that, in the intentionality, the effect that stretches beyond the immediate action and its effect, may be more or less beneficial to the individual and his expanding circle of influence. While a mere action stemming from different modes of being may be the same, the modification on the subsequent mode of being of the individual, and its later effect in manifesting further action, can be better or worse in relation to the modification of the original intention of the “same action”.

I think the method as well as consequence should always be measured and taken into consideration. We may not currently be able to calculate the hierarchy correctly, due to the difficulty in a complete analysis of repercussions and preconditions, but I believe it is certainly true that there are better and worse ways to produce the same results as we can easily intuit from the change in conscious experience that results from different sources of intentionality. Due to the causal factors emanating from an action, we can never test a system in the present moment against another, as any individual system, in its fullness and facticity, can never truly be created, but this doesn’t mean that we can’t intuit using reason and subjective experience to formulate an extrapolation of causal effects to make definite claims on the extreme ends of the moral spectrum as to their effect upon the wellbeing of sentient beings. Even in situations where the moral outcome appears to be the same, it never can, in practice, in reality, outside of thought experiments and labs, actually be, because the method used to achieve it changes the universe, it is by definition a method, a movement of something, a change in something, and changes produce better or worse outcomes, always. We can never recreate an action, because the time is always changing, as the moment changes, the action inevitably will not be the same. Time, place, people, situation, all matter.

Any talk of universalizing action or moral imperatives is extremely shallow and definitely isn’t accounting for the nuances between different times and situations, but just because this is the case, doesn’t imply that a moral relativist perspective holds its ground, it more points to the fallibility in measuring differences between potential actions, and the inaccuracy in determining optimal solutions to moral problems. We can judge and predict future outcomes based on experiential data from the past in a way that is informed and wise. As it is true that we can’t prove gravity will exist in the future, yet from past verification we can assume the probability of its efficacy extrapolated into the future will be high, high enough to act as if it was truly a fact. In the same way, moral conclusions based on past experience, which are, in this case, objective datum, can be extrapolated to their probability of being effective at producing similar results of wellbeing and reduction in suffering into the future, in similar situations as recorded experience, and thus treat the imperatives or experiential knowledge as if it we’re real in the sense of, worth acting upon for the desired future results.

Moral realism is plausible if you accept that morality is the business of moving away from the most possible misery for everyone towards something better. This creates a spectrum where moral statements, if carried out, move us more or less far from that place, thus producing better and worse solutions to moral problems, validating the claim that there are right or wrong answers to moral claims. Accepting this premise for morality is akin to accepting other axioms in other fields. Such as, that truth and evidence matter to science, health is good for medicine, that burning the whole world down would be a terrible plan for an economist, etc. For moral philosophy, a good bedrock is the positiveness of moving away from the most possible misery for every sentient being. While this conceptualization of an objective and non – relativistic moral system appears to be valid in optimizing how we view experience and moral decisions, that is, based on wellbeing and suffering, this structure itself may be fallible in that there may be a better way of conceptualizing the moral landscape, or other views on morality could possible by more effective than this method.