Is morality tyrannical by the majority?

Hello. The question of moral legitimacy is a headache for many philosophers, and I don't think anyone will be able to give a clear answer, but I would like to talk about my understanding.

Hegel said, "To be is to be reasonable". It means that everything that exists must have been adapted to the situation of the time, otherwise it would not have appeared.

From this point of view, all morality that has existed must have a reason for its existence. For example, what you said about "wrapping small feet" and "three obedience and four virtues", this kind of moral norm is the moral norm of the feudal period, which does imprison some of people's nature and physiological characteristics, but the entire feudal morality behind this moral norm still plays a great role in maintaining social stability and ensuring basic production and life. So as far as feudal morality is concerned, it is clear that it has advantages and disadvantages, and as for the trade-offs, everyone has their own opinions, so its rationality also varies from person to person.

John Mill's argument that the morality of a country and a period is the embodiment of the interests of the dominant class at that time, in other words, everyone can ensure and protect the interests of the majority of the people in the country by following this moral norm, if we regard the protection of the interests of the majority of the people as reasonable, then obviously such morality is reasonable, if we do not agree with such a statement, then it is unreasonable, so the rationality of morality still varies from person to person.

In short, I think so, every era has its own morality, and every era's morality has its pros and cons, and of course we do not allow or encourage immoral things to exist, provided that we have a moral norm that outweighs the disadvantages as much as possible.

To answer this question, we must begin with the nature and origin of morality. In other words, we must understand why morality exists and what it means.

All living beings have a variety of behaviors, although they are ever-changing, but they are all inseparable from the word "survival", that is, actions that are beneficial to life are truly meaningful behaviors. In the same way, the meaning of morality and the meaning of its emergence are nothing more than that. For example, the reason why people cannot do cruel acts, such as killing people and setting fires, is precisely because such acts are harmful to human life.

And killing a pig or a sheep is nothing, precisely because it is not harmful to people, on the contrary, it is beneficial.

It turns out that the essence of morality, like the purpose of all living things' actions, is to survive in a better way. It provides more benefits to those who are in it, which is why these people advocate for them so much. It is precisely because of this that morality is mostly beneficial to those who advocate it, so if you want to allow immorality to exist, it is best to think carefully about whether you benefit from its existence.

"The morality of the Roman Empire was a spiritual tool to safeguard the interests of the slave owners and aristocracy, to deceive and suppress slaves. The Romans believed that human beings were inherently divided into rulers and ruled by the gods. Slaves must obey God's will and willingly obey their masters' commands.

Slave owners regarded slaves as nothing more than living property, talking instruments, and denied them any freedom and power. The killing of a master by a slave is a heinous act that must be severely punished. And it is moral for a master to kill his own slaves at will, it is only exercising his ownership of his own property.

360 Encyclopedia. Morality.

I think so, the key depends on the occasion and the era. and the definition of morality.

Before the court, there is a good thing that is better than nothing.

Isn't it reasonable to follow three from four virtues?

Moral violence is everywhere and paralyzes people's minds. Under the guise of safeguarding social morality and building a moral society, the remarks and behaviors that implement, advocate, and obsess over "moral violence" are outright "pseudo-morality" and are incompatible with moral norms and laws. Morality is the extension of law, and law is the bottom line of morality.

What a harmonious society needs is the moral norms of "patriotism and law-abiding, courtesy, integrity, unity and friendliness, diligence and thrift, self-improvement, dedication and dedication", not "moral violence".