am i correct?

Very correct

There are three moral states.

Immoral - Morally Nuetral - Moral

Benefiting someone is moral as it benefits.

Morally nuetral is where it neither benefits nor detriments another party.

For instance if I say hello to someone, it has done neither a positive nor negative thing to them.

I more or less have been asking people that very blunt question of how to morally prove murder is wrong because I'm curious how other people justify the claim to themselves.

I've developed an objective morality framework but I'm pretty curious how other people go about it in every day life even with obviously immoral things.

The justification part is where people seem to lose the plot.

Everything else I think people can wrap their heads around pretty easily when someone makes it explicit but justification part just seems complicated.

Mainly because there are three words associated: Justified/justification, just, justice

They are NOT the same things.

Since it is late and you alluded to being a bit tired for such a heavy topic, I'd like to ask you a different question that is related.

If you were able to have it proven to you that objective morality based on pure reason existed and how it works, how would that impact your life and perspective of life in general?

not very much actually. though i am religious and feel that religion is a good path to mortality, i see human beings as highly complicated creatures who are capable of reason in many different ways. a catholic, a jew, and an atheist may come to 'mortality' on different paths, but in the end they end up agreeing more than they disagree when it comes to right and wrong.

granted, you always have those people whose path led them to justifying things that are not right, in the name of being right. a christian who thinks gayness is evil, a muslim who thinks 'others' are evil, and atheist who thinks religion is itself evil, and so on

Those would be based on theory, not proof. It's like if a bunch of groups theorized what the shape of earth and then got proved it was a globe shape and either had to give into the facts or be provably delusional.

Think of it like religion even.

If the Christian God, the supernatural one, was proven to be real and created reality and the people in it, that would have a massively interesting effect on both Christians who just had faith, and atheists who just didn't believe it at all.

when you say 'prove', by which method do you mean? philosophy is not something that can be proven through something scientific

Agnostics would be like “neat”

@Cirno I think god coming down and being like “yup, I exist” would be pretty solid proof assuming it did something godlike

@Cirno - Science was born of philosphy. Science just has a way of proving things via logic and facts.

Well

Such logic as: A + B = C

Not really

Science is more a method

To get as close to the truth as we can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

Not necessarily proving things

Most things in science are just very very sound theories that have been tested and refined

But it’s hard to actually prove something

And math is more of a concept, so you can prove stuff there

But as far as our reality goes, it’s much harder to prove stuff

There are two types of hypothesis in science. The kind with no ability to have hidden variables and the kind that most certainly will have hidden variables.

Can I get an example of one with no ability to have hidden variables?

A simple lever and how much weight it will move with x amount of force applied at any particular point of the lever.

As an ideal model, sure

But when you try to implement it into reality you introduce the possibility of hidden variables

No idea what you said.