It&#x27;s just a very complex topic. IIRC, there&#x27;s a user called ReallyNicole on AskPhilosophy, who specializes in Moral philosophy, and makes really good breakdowns about it periodically. Try to seek them out.<p>As far as HN is concerned, though, I think you should focus on this statement by my parent:<p>&gt; <i>Progress is just change that the writer agrees with.There is no objective morality and the &quot;&quot;long arch to justice&quot; is just a random walk.</i><p>I don&#x27;t think this is a good comment, or good attitude to bring into political discussion. You may not be able to pin down the notion of &quot;Love&quot; or &quot;Art&quot; or even &quot;Game&quot; to a definition, but they are still &quot;real&quot; enough as far as Philosophical Realism is concerned (here is where Wittgenstein may be useful), to discuss. To make quippy comments about how &quot;there is no progress&quot; seems to me like a cheap argumentative ploy in favor of a &quot;fuck you got mine&quot; life philosophy.<p>The idea that women&#x27;s liberation and the abolishment of slavery are &quot;arbitrarily&quot; positive things, and that we may like them exactly as likely as we may not via some senseless quirk of history, seems pretty asinine and lazy.<p>I am a scientist, and I feel like sciency analogies to philosophical concepts are almost always dodgy, but I will try anyway: To me, it seems similar on some level to say that, because the particles of gas in a room could be here, or could be there agglomerated on a corner, there is no meaningful way in which we can talk about the temperature of a room. Truth is, some combinations and permutations have been observed to be way more likely than others, way before we could meaningfully articulate the underlying mechanisms with anything rigorous.<p>This doesn&#x27;t mean that the radically opposite conclusion is true either. You could go all the way against &quot;there&#x27;s no arc of justice&quot;, and become a Fukuyamaist or a Spanish Inquisitor: &quot;there is an arc of justice, and it bends towards <i>this</i>&quot;. This is not a necessary outcome of Moral Realism though. Moral realism, to me, basically seems to say, that ethics and morality is not a &quot;nonsense&quot; discussion topic (again: Wittgenstein).