If we want to be very reductive about it there is not a great reason to believe we can use formal logic to inform the chosen(?) actions of huge aggregates of mo

If we want to be very reductive about it there is not a great reason to believe we can use formal logic to inform the chosen(?) actions of huge aggregates of molecules jiggling around. All ethical systems that have withstood the test of time (the gold & silver rules) use subjectivity. Everything else falls prey to absurdity. I recall an objection was raised (possibly by Alasdair MacIntyre? it's been a while since I got wrapped up in all this) that any system of ethics must be inherently self-contradictory. The reason for this is something like any time we spend in pursuit of correcting or preventing some moral wrong is time not given doing the same for another. And there are certainly a great many moral wrongs going on according to any given system of ethics - probably all of equal importance. Separately we might also ask whether we even want to solve the problem of ethics. Imagine tomorrow we develop an ironclad formal moral system - everyone is forced to agree it is correct through sheer reason alone, and it meaningfully informs our every action. Would you really want to live in such a world? It seems a world without freedom, or one which would quickly become that way. All-encompassing totalitarianism. [0] In other threads you say you aren't interested in proving which system of ethics is most applicable to human endeavours or anything like that. At this point we get into "higher order truths about chmess" territory, as in - why bother? [1] [0] https://www.existentialcomics.com/comic/139 https://www.existentialcomics.com/comic/139 [1] https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/chmess.pdf https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/chmess.pdf