A True Love Of Morality

A simple question can put someone in a position of revealing (as much as mere words can reveal) if they have allegiance to the concept of morality or to their own preferences: "Would you kill everyone else on Earth if it was the obligatory thing to do?"  I do not mean that I believe that this particular process of eliminating all other life forms is obligatory or even that there are any moral obligations (although there is evidence that they do exist because there is evidence for Christianity).  The question is something people can wonder about themselves or ask others in order to see how sincere they are about actually caring about the idea of morality itself instead of just personal preferences and cultural norms.  The issue is about whether someone would kill outside of self-defense or some other more conventional context if that was the right thing to do.

If someone would not slaughter every living thing if that was morally obligatory and if he or she knew with absolute certainty that this was how they should live, all of their supposed concern for morality is at best a pathetic attempt to make them feel good about themself or to make others subjectively approve of them.  Any concern for morality that is driven by philosophical assumptions and an unwillingness to actually live in accordance with whatever might be obligatory, no matter how subjectively painful or objectively destructive it might be, is not concern for morality at all.  It is a hollow illusion that any sincerely rational thinker can immediately see right through in themselves and others.  Whether or not morality exists and what moral obligations there might be has nothing to do with the desperate hopes and fears of any person.  Conscience itself is of no use at all in knowing anything beyond one's perceptions, and following it could lead someone into a figurative or literal hell without them knowing until the end.

Killing is hardly the worst thing one carry out, but the point is about testing sincerity, not seeing if oneself or someone else is willing to do the most malicious things possible out of emotionalistic motivation.  Since I know the contents of my own mind and not those of other minds (if any exist), I can know with absolute certainty that I am or am not willing to do literally anything as long as it is morally required of me--not required according to the meaningless cries of other people, or conscience, or arbitrary laws, but according to actual moral obligations.  The same is not true of other people.  They can act and talk as if they care about the core fact that one should fulfill any moral obligations that do exist, but as soon as specific examples come up, especially examples that make their petty consciences flare up, they submit to conscience instead of the hypothetical moral obligations in question.

Someone who understands that something is only obligatory if it should be done no matter what and that it is true that their preferences have no value has the rationality, self-awareness, and maturity to realize that even an obligation that terrifies or enraged them would still be obligatory.  Most people show no signs of being this type of person.  The masses will verbally fight to make themselves feel or seem better according to the arbitrary perceptions of others, but they almost invariably fail to even live out their own random, logically invalid (because of conceptual inconsistencies) ideas about morality.  They do not even begin to approach the idea of moral obligations with a true love of morality and a desire to do whatever they should instead of whatever they wish!  Whether or not morality even exists, such people are pathetic fools to dimwitted and selfish to even grasp necessary truths about what it would actually mean for something to be obligatory.