moralty is so complex that we as a society water it down to neat and clean so it doesnt ignite a chaos within our system.
that i owned this body.
that i happened to be born in this body. why is our default assumption that i own it? or that i control it?
because to explore such an idea in society may lead to complex peril. as a collective, we cannot handle such complexity. so simplifying it down is in an aggregate better and more just than to explore something fully to the end. becasuse along the way of asking the question o of it we own our bodies would lead to externalities and causalities like organ harvesting, rape etc. and so we dont go that route, even though the end result may end up being even better than just assming we own our bodies. (example: more systematized and abundant organs for those hwo need it etc. )
another example was that race IQ thing - why explore it? what is your intention? but what if it leads to the bext possible societial infrastrctutre institution structure?\
or saying that murder is bad ALL the time in ALL scenerious, even though thats not true (i.e a hypothetical where murder leads to cure for cancer, in that there would be no other way to attan the ure for cancer0
this sort of also goes to the idea that truth is inherently good , and that in all philosophy is the underline that such a philosophy, if espoused, leads to the good (wrote about this elshwere, not the being is good, but at undercoded in all philosophy is the idea that the exploration of philosophy will lead to good, for philsoophy literally means for the love of wisdom, and wisdom means exploring the ideas that is of benefit for all.)
ref being is good: "if any theory or way of living leads to its eventual collapse - then it isnt true."