The morality dilemma and the crisis in meaning are of course connected.
Only within the monarchical vision can the question “what is good” be answered because it is evaluated from the “view from nowhere”. Each of us, limited creatures in time must ask “good for what?”
Is the gang initiate’s killing of a rival “good” or “good for something.
Poor PSASitch couldn’t get
on his channel.
Obviously it’s good for something in the eyes of nation states, tribes and aggrieved loves the world over.
Our morality crisis comes from the iron box of secular materialism. We are cut off from telos.
The irony of the monarchical vision is it only can work if telos is more real than anything else. (Are you feeling Platonic yet?)
Objectivity has always played out in various foundationalisms. You’ve got to build on something so the decision was made to build on that which is commonly at hand, the material world that we share. But sharing involved sharing with other beings all of which have views. It works in simply things but as things get more complex subjectivity arises. This of course yields conflict and we try to mediate the conflicts by agreement on “what is good”. Go back to square one.
All human questions of “what is good” lead to “what is good for” so if you are cut off from final (telos) ultimate (telos) agreement and knowledge of what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum .
This is why all judgments beg for an ultimate judge and why it is a terrible shame if the atheists are right and there is no good because then all we’re doing is fighting for the scraps. Enter Nietzsche and nihilism.
This is why Jordan Peterson grounds his truth in Darwinian survival. It gives him a place to stand.
Julian blogs a response. https://coffeewithkierkgaard.home.blog/2019/02/17/fiedistic-morality-a-critique-of-esther-and-adam/