If the goals for morality we pick are fundamentally arbitrary, but we still agree on a specific goal, can we compare moralities to see which “path” to the goal is best?
In a certain sense we can, but in another it is just as arbitrary. The problem is the definition of “best.” Say we pick maximum liberty as the goal for our morality. How do we define the “best” maximum liberty?
Is living in the woods the maximum liberty? Is it possible to compare one government to another, like saying the USA has maximized liberty more than China?
I think it’s possible to do, but only if we have a shared context in every important aspect. We must agree on every little facet of what maximum liberty means, and where we disagree, there can be only pragmatic resolutions, not philosophical ones.
The point is not that pragmatism is dangerous or scary because it makes beliefs subjective, but that fundamentally it is the only way to come to a conclusion.
Realize you have built the moral box around yourself.