Morality doesnt exist. It is not a material thing, it doesnt refer to anything that exists in the real world. Morality is in the same class as god, religion and human rights i.e human inventions, human fetishization of abstract concepts. Abstract concepts have no effect on material reality any more than we will them to. For example, religion is a thing only because people believe in it.
So I never use morals and morality as an argument in anything. The struggle for a better world doesnt need it at all. Exploitation is ended when workers pursue their self interest, no morals involved here. Veganism is achieved only when you make people empathise with animals (a bio-chemical reaction) or when you physically ban meat, not because of any morals. I can give many more examples.
In fact, it is precisely morality that is one of the tools of the oppressor. Notice how worker ownership of profit is bad because "the capitalist deserves his share". This is a moral argument, not a material argument. When the ruling class enforces laws that harms millions, it is justified because the law is just. This is another abstract moral argument. When workers fight back, or when you just shoot a billionaire or a politician, it is said to be immoral, because reasons. You can make up any bullshit reason, and any bullshit argument because you are not dealing with material things, so there is simply no way to be correct or wrong.
Marx is said to have laughed when people used to make moral arguments with him. Stirner completely destroyed morality as an idea, Nietzche revealed the psychology behind morality etc.
EDIT: Looks like this sub is thoroughly spooked. I guess I should have expected it considering you're all liberals. Don't worry, I will keep posting Stirner memes until morale improves.
No, our understanding of a better world is out of self interest. Saying that I want to work less, that I dont want to live a precarious life, that I dont want to be exploited is out of self interest. There is no moral argument here. It just so turns out that such a world can be achieved easier through co-operation. Also, due to empathy (which is a biological mechanism), I don't want other people to be harmed. If I see people starving to death I feel bad. In the real world, this feeling is actually quite limited, so that's why we know millions of children starve to death every year but we don't do anything about it. Not because we are immoral, but because it doesnt cause us enough discomfort to make us want to do something about it. It is a simple cost-benefit calculation.
Why not accept these things as the natural order of things? Plenty of people do. There's no objective basis for determining whether you are being exploited.
Surplus value is an objective quantity. The Marxist definition of rate of exploitation is strictly an objective definition. Rate of exploitation = s/v. We call this exploitation as an indication that workers can, if they choose to, acquire this value as they are the source of it.
Because its not in my self interest to do so? What argument or gotcha are you even making here?
My point is simply that at some point a value judgment is always inevitable, even if it's to decide that the correct course of action is to act in what you understand to be your rational self interest