I get what you're saying but there are still some things I disagree with, the whole problem with concepts like Morality/ethics.

For one thing, moral philosophy and its problems have been debated for thousands of years now, and there is still no consensus on the matter;

You will first have to consider, why are you debating Morality?
What's the goal you're trying to accomplish through debating it?
Is it merely to discuss what is right and what is wrong and come to an agreement?

These are questions that need to be answered before even discussing it, because to some.. Morals is just a tool used to accomplish something. Objectively we were born on this planet to reproduce and survive, evolution dictates our lives and thoughts.

People who try to twist it into something else are speaking subjectively, merely an opinion and we all have those and it's not a good basis for discussion. It's like if someone debated with Nasa that spaceships should be designed different because they feel it would be better. NASA tells them it would increase the risk of death if they were designed differently so it's a bad idea. But the person keeps insisting that they feel their idea is better.

That's how stupid discussing Morality is. Your feelings don't matter when it comes to programming, science, or mathematics. Even if you feel like a formula should be different it doesn't matter.

But of course people will still debate out of their own self-interest. Sometimes people lose in an ideal society and they don't like it. They don't like it when they suffer in an ideal society and want to change it so their own life is better. That does make sense objectively, for their own survive they are trying to improve their quality of life. That persons own self-interests differ from other people because they have a different environment. It's like if you are poor you will obviously want to escape being poor. So you ask the government to change society so that you're no longer poor.

For that individual that is objectively the best choice for their survival. But if you're a rich person and the poor person is asking you to take your wealth way. That is objectively the worst choice for you as an individual, it'd decrease your offsprings chance of survival and ability to reproduce.

Subjective Morality. (This can be a billion different things)
Objective Morality. (What is best for your survival and ability to reproduce, and overall quality of life.)

Then there's Objective Morality for society as a whole (What is best for societies survival, ability to reproduce.) The reason quality of life matters is because without it, there could be things like crime rates, wars.. people trying to change the system which makes everything worse, people stealing, etc.. So Quality of life is important for survival.

See how easy it is to come to a conclusion when you throw out subjective bullshit and stay logical? What's Objectively better for 1 person can be objectively worse for someone else. If someone stays objective on the matter they can realize this, and there'd be no need for disagreement. But because peoples feelings get in the way or because they act in self-interest, they try to debate with something that isn't best for them

Now if we take this further, society does not function off one individual.. It functions as a group, this is important to understand when debating whether an Individuals Objective Morality is more important than society as a group.

So we know as a species what's most important is how society functions as a whole. When we come to that conclusion it's easy to deduce what is right or wrong based on what produces the best outcome for society as a whole. Even if some people get fucked over as a result, all that matters is what is best for society as a whole.

Morality has been dated for thousands of years, not because everyone is wrong and they don't know the answer. But for much more complicating reasons you can't just simplify like that.

I can give hundreds of examples on why Morality still gets debated. But one example is people acting in self-interest. Let's say there's a world war going on and some people have to go to war and die for their country. Let's say those people want to live and do not want to die for their country because it's their instinct to try to survive.

They may easily debate how unethical it is to send people to war. But what if the country would lose the war if they didn't? Both come to a disagreement. Then you have that persons family he left to go to war. They all disagree with sending him to his death for the sake of war, because it affects them.

These people can stupidly debate this all they want, but objectively it makes sense for the person to die for his country. There's countless examples like this so there will always be people debating Morality. That doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer to it. Unless someone thinks subjectivity & feelings matter in the discussion. Then that just makes them another drone who is constantly debating Morality for thousands of years, I would think someone would take a hint after a thousand years that debating things subjectively is a wasted endeavor.

You're better off taking an objective approach, and now that society has gained more knowledge on the Psychology of human beings and how to social engineer people for an ideal outcome, we have a clearer picture on how to best create the ideal society. But there's tons of other factors that make it hard to create. (Plenty of billionaires out there acting in self-interest trying to keep their power while others stay powerless).

There will be people who disagree with me for countless reasons, but that's just their opinion. I know for a fact that evolution gave us tools to reproduce and survive, but peoples feelings try to add some greater meaning to life when there really isn't.

No matter how much someone argues about how they feel evolution is not true, it still is true. Same goes with what's best for Society as a whole. Philosophy is fucking ignorant to think there's no answer to Morality, gain all this insight and still think through a subjective lense.