24 point outline proving morals do not exist

if free is assumed to exist, free will is defined by being independent of divine and physical forces

free will has only first-person ontology; it is not a third-person entity/being

intentionality is realizing first-person motives in third-person perspective/being

intentionality of free will is only in first-person, which is either an impetus at a point in time, or an infinite chain of impetuses (to choose free will)

person is responsible for initial impetus, but without third-person aspect of intentionality, there is no reflexivity or definition of the self with respect to the external

impetus is first-person ontology, so good or bad aspect of impetus is not third-person ontology

impetus is therefore specific to people, and without a way to judge morals -- just like there is no way to judge what it is like to experience of unique consciousness for each individual -- we cannot determine if impetus is good or bad

impetus is specific to individual person because the definition of free will directly implies choice for the individual

impetus is first-person ontology only, so since it is not result based, we are left with:

a) good or bad aspect of impetus is in the eye/mind of the beholder if impetus is viewed as a particular or with relativity without a universal standard

b) good or bad aspect of impetus has a universal standard accommodating all particulars of all situations

if b is true, then we can never know what the universal standard is because we would need the impetus to have a third-person ontology in addition to first-person.

therefore, the impetus is either entirely subjective, or entirely objective without any possible objective standard

it follows that if *b* is the case, then being objective without any objective standard makes the goodness of the impetus an act of faith

an act of faith means that the impetus is irrational

it follows that if *a* is the case, then we eventually arrive at the same conclusion as for *b* because being entirely subjective means impetus is entirely irrational/unexplainable

irrational impetus defines the basis of human nature

since impetus is irrational, human nature can be reduced to animal nature

animals are assumed to act in the best interest of themselves and their species

therefore, all impetuses by all humans must be assumed to be in the best interest of themselves and their species at any given time and place

all impetuses must be considered good if one believes it is human nature to be acting in the interests of both the self and the species (if considered bad, then our entire species would be considered misanthropic, which is not a plausible scenario)

since animals act in the best interest of both themselves and their species, it is impossible to determine whether it is more moral to be selfish or selfless

all people, at their most fundamental basis, must be considered to be good people if one believes in morals; if one does not believe in morals, then people at their most fundamental basis are effectively neutral

if all people are considered good people, then all their impetuses must be good, and without a distinction between good and bad, good is no longer considered good, but carries an amoral or neutral designation

therefore, whether or not we believe in morals, all people, at their most fundamental basis, must be considered of one designation, being an amoral or neutral one

additionally, morals simply exist as an intellectual construct, or more accurately, a universal and abstract idea in our consciousness, in a manner not fundamentally different from knowing the concept of numbers, etc. so, in reality, morals exist as ideas, not as morals in and of themselves