Yes, we seem to lack the framework and vocabulary to discuss morality anymore. You may be right that this is tied to the demise of spiritualism (or perhaps organized religion).

The point is that moralism makes everyone blind and see in black and white.

Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.

I have a huge problem with your use of "moralism" as a term. For me it appears to be used pejoratively as an act to weaken the concept of morals at large. (Which isn't your invention but something you probably picked up.)

We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.

What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.

You are clearly describing "villainizing" people or groups. This is actually the opposite of moralism, which would be criticizing specific violations of morals.

Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.

It's pretty strange to see "whoever you've convinced yourself is the current villain" next to, you know, actual villains. Who do you think qualifies to be an actual villain, if they don't?

Lol I don't think people had to convince themselves of anything regarding the examples you sited, they let everyone know who they are on their own

> And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?

Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.

> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.

I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.

(opinion) current "democratic" systems structurally have a tendency to put the worse people at the top (amoral/immoral/corrupt etc.). with that assertion, swapping to random people would probably prove an improvement.