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.
Those three real things are associated. What word would you use to describe their association? Or is the apparant connection between them just a trick of the light?
You are right the origin of the shared understanding is communication, but you are once again arguing origin, which I agree with you on, and being, which is our disagreement. Whatever it came out of, that shared understanding exists, distinct from a thought, and is a component of a thing that the Quran is also a component of, and a nonexistent thing can not be comprised of real things.
Similarly, morality exists as a shared understanding, a relationship between brains that is independant of brains. You can prove it is arbitrary all you like, but arbitrarity, or being a product of invention, do not preclude material existence. And that materiality has consequences for how we should act in the world; in the case of leftism for example, I would argue that a moral organization will be more successful than an amoral organization, and would thus suggest morality play a part in organizing.
It's a massive leap to go from "morality is common understanding through communication" to "morality exists independant of brains". There is no evidence of this.
I'm not denying that morality as a thought has material existence and therefore real consequence. I'm saying that this abstract concept does not exist outside the mind. Like how is this a controversial statement? By existence I literally mean physical existence. There exist no atoms that make up a substance called morality. That is what I mean by material existence.
You could literally make the same argument for God. Billions of people believe in god, so it affects us. Doesnt mean God is real or that I should give a fuck about God. I work actively to make God unreal in the minds of people, to the point where the concept no longer has any affect on anyone. The same thing can be done to morality.
In the real world, what we call morality is a proxy for a whole host of things. The physical force of the law is used to enforce social norms. Other social norms are regulated by social interactions between family, friends, coworkers etc. Inbuilt emotions like fear, empathy, guilt regulate our actions. Nowhere in this complex set of interactions does the abstract concept of morality exist. It is an idea used to simplify our understanding of human behavior. I also don't understand what an amoral organization means.
Moreover, in the real world, it is impossible to have any set of consistent moral beliefs. All actions are considered in their context, rather than compared to an abstract moral standard. So a person who doesnt have any moral standard at all can function just as well as a person without because both operate more or less the same way. No one does things constantly calculating the moral worth of their actions.
I could've been clearer: what I mean by independant of brains is, as a relationship between brains, it doesn't exist solely as thought, but as a 'thing' beyond thought. The relationship itself, the sharing, is the 'thing'. It doesn't exist independant of brains, but rather the better phrasing would be, independant of a brain, since it could apply to any number of brains, you could remove or add brains, even remove all the brains and have it stored externally and then reintroduced into later brains. I'm sorry, its sort of a difficult concept to express but I'm trying my hardest.
You are right that it doesn't exist in the form of atoms (although thoughts do). But nor does Christianity, an abstract concept, but being abstract doesn't mean not being real. Atomic weight is not a prerequisite for existence. War, for example, is a concept with no atomic weight, but you surely agree it would be silly to say there is no such thing as war. Religion is the same, but not God: this is because God, although it may be strange to say it, is not an abstract concept, but a concrete concept. Religion on the other hand is - although abstract - an undeniable reality, and if you spend as much time as you say denying God to believers one you engage with frequently, despite its lack of molecules.
You are right perhaps that what we call morality can be broken down into smaller parts, like war or religion can, and those small parts observed, but I disagree that it is a proxy for them, I contend that it is rather the sum of them. As for an amoral organisation, its a matter of presentation: I would prefer one that presents its mission in moral terms as well as self-interest, as opposed to one that solely focuses on self-interest.
Also, just so you know round these parts they don't look kindly on people quoting parts of a message to respond to