If morality is dead - is everything permitted?

A demonstration of the philosophy of learning applied to the field of morality. Unlike the philosophy of the future, which will examine a moral act according to its future judgment, the learning philosophy of morality argues that there is no such thing as future judgment (when? In a thousand years? A million? After all, even in the future, judgment will change and reverse again and again) as an object to which one can aspire (asymptotically). On the contrary, morality should be understood as a system of learning in the present, in which we have no future pretension (to reach a limit), except for the desire to progress (in the current derivative). In fact, ontologically, the future itself will be defined as the direction of learning progress, which stems from and is created by learning as a by-product, and not as an imaginary metaphysical object placed somewhere on an axis - at a time that does not currently exist

The death of a great moral figure is a change in morality itself - in morality as a learning system (Source)

Morality as an idea, as a construct, is an artificial, unconvincing abstraction - and most importantly: harmful - of rules of behavior between people, which replaced the legal rules of religion, for which it is a secular substitute, whose purpose was to prove that it is possible without it (and without God) to behave correctly. But why do we need to prove that it's possible to behave correctly in order to be able to secularize? Because the target audience for secularization in the first place was the people of correctness, the people of society, and there, behaving correctly is the criterion, not abstract belief, or an abstract system.

Contrary to what Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and even Hitler thought - the death of God changed nothing about human behavior. Because they don't behave according to morality, or religion, but according to what is accepted in their society, how they are taught to behave, and therefore as long as they are taught the same thing - they behave the same way. Only a change in learning can lead to a change in behavior, not abstract principles like the unnecessary Kantian moral project. The moral ideology has now reached bankruptcy as it takes over every good part and subordinates everything to it - politics, aesthetics, human relations, art, culture, science - everything is examined through harmful moral glasses, and therefore the prohibitions turn from prohibiting action to prohibiting speech (politically correct) and eventually will reach thought prohibitions.

Therefore, like liberation from religion, one must be liberated from morality. And what will replace it? Learning. Just as morality is the abstraction of religion into a behavioral system without a commanding god (i.e., removing an unnecessary component), so learning is the abstraction of morality into behavioral learning without an abstract behavioral system from which everything is derived (which is basically a very primitive form of behavioral learning: setting a rigid framework from which one only needs to derive to reality in a one-way manner, as opposed to two-way in learning. Learning can change the purpose of behavior, not just serve it).

Continuing to bring morality down from heaven to earth and from the world of principles to the world of learning - is the most important trend for a philosophy of morality in our time. But it's not just about morality, but a general philosophical principle. The truth that is built through an abstract system in the world of ideas can be brought down to legal truth, one that resides in existing institutions. Thus, scientific truth is a legal truth of the legal system of science, with its institutions, judges, and decision-makers and various appeal methods. Religious truth - stems from religious institutions. And contrary to a simplistic perception, it's not arbitrary if humans determine, because their determination is actually made in a living legal system.

Such a system cannot be reduced to procedure alone, meaning it's not procedural truth, but one that stems from the continuity of the legal system, which will not put three monkeys as judges who might rule according to procedure but will rule nonsense. Because in a living system, monkeys cannot be appointed as judges in the first place (unlike in a principled system, where one can imagine a court of the three monkeys). It is precisely the arbitrariness of the legal determination that creates the truth, because it is the one that finally meets the question of why, and sets a limit to it - this is how the judges ruled. This is how the decisors ruled and therefore one cannot claim that according to Jewish religion pork is kosher, even though one can interpret that pork is kosher (say, in Derrida). Therefore, not every interpretation is possible in a living system, and in fact, this doesn't happen, and Halacha [Jewish law], for example, works. In fact, the idea of morality grew out of Christian culture and the specific secularization that grew within it, and if secularization had grown in halakhic religions like Judaism and Islam - such an idea would not have grown.

If we identify some important legal systems in our world, we can examine the state (the political part and the government, where decisions are reached as a living system), literary criticism and art criticism in general (where consensus is reached after a few hundred years), science, and also the education system (where a conclusion is also reached about what to teach, there is a practical decision). And there is no hostile, Foucauldian view of these systems here. On the contrary, this is a view that resembles the Kantian move, that what in the eyes of others is a problem (of power preservation, a moral problem) - is actually the good, this is how it should be, and this is how it works (like Kant's categories). Therefore, morality works - not through ideology and values - but as learning. And this is indeed the reason why morality improves and progresses, and a moral discussion can take place whether eating animals is moral, at the end of which moral learning will reach a consensus, one way or another. But one cannot argue that if in our time it is morally forbidden, it was always forbidden according to "moral principles" (an absurd claim in its judgment of the past), or that if it was not forbidden in the past it is also not forbidden in the present - because it is a learning system.