Hmm.
This is perplexing thought pattern, I can’t comprehend it, but I am willing to explore it.
This makes sense at first glance. We feel good emotions when we are being affirmed and thus no matter what the morality of a group is, good feelings arise when we conform in a way that affirms our belonging and thus survival and reproductive worth.
This is terrible though. The Aztecs were slaughtering young women (and men?) on top of their versions of pyramids. By the premise that good feelings arise from moral correctness, then both those slaughtering, and being slaughtered felt “good feelings “.
This reaffirms the startling and terrible premise; if for the most extreme, and historically accurate example, a child is sexually exploited and then slaughtered on an altar, both the child and the sexual exploiter and slaughterer would have experienced good feelings.
All conformed to the morality of the tribe and group.
To emphasise this, I recently watched a video of the most preserved remains of a mummified individual in Chile.
She was a young girl, who had travelled an extreme distance, and was most likely a class of child destined for ritual prostitution or sacrifice, buried with cocaine leaves in her mouth.
So, this requires some consideration. If all involved are experiencing good feelings, because they are morally in alignment with the tribe, how is that something to be free of?
I am not objecting to actual freedom here. I am not objecting at all, honestly! This just seems so bizarre!
Good feelings arise through the fact that an individual is completely conformed with the moral code of the tribe.
Or is that a misunderstanding?